Sorry...resending because I mistyped the author address.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:48 PM
Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <
iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org


Summary:  No security issues found, but I do have questions, and there are
editing glitches

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

This document describes the management interface for microwave radio links.
It advocates (correctly, I believe) that such an interface should be
extensible to provide for vendor-specific features.

I don't understand the difference between a "a traditional network
management system" and SDN.  Perhaps it is not the job of this document to
clearly make the distinction, and I suspect there is no real
distinction...setting parameters (traditional network management) is a way
of "programming" an interface ("SDN").

This document could use an editing pass for glitches, but these glitches do
not impact its readability.

The glitches consist  mostly of leaving out little words like "of" in the
following sentence.
"The adoption of an SDN framework for management and
   control the microwave interface is one of the key applications for
   this work."

The security considerations say that they assume a secure transport layer
(authenticated, probably encryption isn't necessary) for communication.
Other than that, perhaps, there might be security considerations for
inadvertently setting parameters incorrectly, or maliciously by a trusted
administrator.  But this document does not specify the specific parameters
to be managed, just a general framework.

Radia