Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-secdir-lc-kaufman-2013-05-23-00

Request Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-06-04
Requested 2013-05-16
Authors Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Joe Abley
I-D last updated 2013-05-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by David L. Black (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by David L. Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Charlie Kaufman
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-05-23
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-secdir-lc-kaufman-2013-05-23-00

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 is a minor update to rfc5342bis, which discusses IANA
considerations for the assignment of code points below the IANA OUI delegated
to the IETF by IEEE 802. This document decouples the assignment of unicast and
multicast addresses,
 which should lead to a more efficient allocation given that few protocols need
 both. It also allocates some code points for use in documentation as examples.



There really are no security considerations associated with this document. The
author points out as a security consideration that allocation of code points
for use in documentation may reduce confusion and conflict if people erroneously
 copy code points literally from documentation rather than substituting their
 own assigned values, and such confusion could have resulted in security issues.



I found no typos or other errors other than there may be a formatting glitch on
the first page of the .pdf version, where my printer put the page 1 trailer
line on a page by itself.



                --Charlie