Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-03.txt

On 3/31/11 11:37 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> William Allen Simpson wrote:
>>   And there should probably be references to the
>> appropriate RFCs in the security section, too.  But those can be added by
>> the RFC Editor.
>
> Adding a new NCP normally adds no additional security issues beyond the
> usual "authenticate your links and/or encrypt traffic if the situation
> warrants."  Is that what you're referring to?  If not, then please
> provide more detailed references for what is "appropriate" here, and
> I'll add them if they're reasonably in scope.
>
> (In other words, there's no way I'm going to add any documentation about
> IS-IS security issues.  That's *way* out of scope, and I'm simply
> guaranteed to get it wrong.  If not now, then certainly over time.  But
> references to RFC 1994 or 1968 or some such would be OK, though I think
> it might be bordering on pedantic to force each new PPP RFC to direct
> implementors to these documents.  Real implementors -- or at least
> modestly competent ones -- know that they've got to look through more
> than one RFC to do the job, depending on circumstances.)
>
You are certainly more parsimonious with references than I've ever been!
Coming originally from an academic environment, I've always made
reference to any "current" or even "interesting" related documents. :-)

Protocol specifications *should* be pedantic: "concerned with minute
details or formalisms, especially in teaching."

In this case, I'd mention "... PPP authentication (see [RFC1661] section
3.5) and IS-IS authentication [RFC5304] mechanisms ...."

Anyway, it's easy to add during the RFC-Editor phase, assuming there's no
other reason to resubmit an internet-draft.
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext