Subject: Review of draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:17:37 -0400

I reviewed the document draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt in general

and for its operational impact.

Operations directorate reviews are solicited primarily to help the area

directors improve their efficiency, particularly when preparing for IESG

telechats, and allowing them to focus on documents requiring their attention

and spend less time on the trouble-free ones.

Improving the documents is important, but clearly a secondary purpose.

A third purpose is to broaden the OpsDir reviewers' exposure to work going

on in other parts of the IETF.

Reviews from OpsDir members do not in and of themselves cause the IESG to

raise issue with a document. The reviews may, however, convince individual

IESG members to raise concern over a particular document requiring further

discussion. The reviews, particularly those conducted in last call and

earlier, may also help the document editors improve their documents.

--

Review Summary: 

Intended status:  Proposed Standard

   This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network

   Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer

   Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)

   protocol.  

Is the document readable?

Yes.

Does it contain nits?

idnits 2.12.01 

tmp/draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt:

tmp/draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt(532): Line has weird spacing: '...patcher
v   ...'

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from

     12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See

     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first

     submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  Does it really need the

     disclaimer?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references

     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4366

     (Obsoleted by RFC 5246)

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).

Is the document class appropriate?

Yes.  

Is the problem well stated?

Yes. 

Is the problem really a problem?

Yes.

Does the document consider existing solutions?

The ISMS WG has considered approaches other than (D)TLS, such as SSH. 

Does the solution break existing technology?

No. 

Does the solution preclude future activity?

No.  

Is the solution sufficiently configurable?

Yes.  Section 7 defines a MIB for the TLS transport model which supports
configuration. 

Can performance be measured? How?

The MIB defined in Section 7 should enable monitoring of aspects of TLS
transport model performance. 

Does the solution scale well?

(D)TLS should scale well as long as the server has a session cache of
sufficient size. 

Is Security Management discussed? 

The entire document is about security management. 

From: Tina TSOU [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ron Bonica; Dan Romascanu
Subject: Operations Directorate Review

Hello,

As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being asked to review the

following IESG work item for it's operational impact.

IETF Last Call:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt

Please provide comments and review to the Ops-dir mailing list

([email-masked]) before the next IESG telechat, and include the authors of
the

draft as well.

The IESG telechat agenda is below, you could find the exact date, i.e. the
expected deadline for the feedback of your review.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/

For a list of questions to be answered in an OPS-DIR review see Appendix A
in RFC 5706. Note that not all questions may apply to all documents, and
some other items may be identified by the OPS-DIR reviews.

The status of Operations Directorate Review could be found

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Directorates

You could wiki it when you finish the review.

Thank you,

Tina

http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:28:35 -0700

BA> I reviewed the document draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt in general
BA> and for its operational impact.

Bernard,

Thanks for your review and comments on the draft!
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions