I have reviewed the latest version of 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. Neither of my comments below seems to have been addressed. In addition, I did notice a few more typos that have been added to the Security Considerations section: * "destine" should be "destined" * "does specifies" should be "does specify" * "but these cases will vary dependent" should be "these cases will vary depending" Other than these typos, the document looks fine from a security perspective. In fact, I'm happy to see more and better commentary in the Security Considerations section. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hanna > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:29 PM > To: The IESG; secdir at ietf.org; 'draft-ietf-manet-smf- > mib.all at tools.ietf.org' > Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 > > 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. > > While I am not an expert in SNMP, SMF, or MANET, I found this > document to be well-written and easy to understand. More relevant > to this review, the security of the protocol is adequate and > the Security Considerations section is exemplary. > > I did notice two typos: > > * In the Security Considerations section, the commentary on > smfConfiguredOpMode includes the words "this writable > configuration objects define". This should end in "object > define", I think. > > * In the Security Considerations section, the commentary on > smfNhdpRssaMesgTLVIncluded includes the words "the the". > Of course, that should be just "the". > > With these corrections, I think the document is ready to publish. > > Thanks, > > Steve