Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12
review-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12-secdir-lc-montville-2020-01-03-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 23) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2020-01-09 | |
Requested | 2019-12-19 | |
Authors | Pascal Thubert , Behcet Sarikaya , Mohit Sethi , Rene Struik | |
I-D last updated | 2020-01-03 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -12
by Adam W. Montville
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Al Morton (diff) Genart Last Call review of -12 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Adam W. Montville |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-VhQE-KhgDkonpusgk4rDmRHBEM | |
Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 23) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2020-01-03 |
review-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12-secdir-lc-montville-2020-01-03-00
Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks, which guards against address theft, is almost ready for publication. There are two points that may warrant attention by the ADs: 1. In the first exchange with a 6LR: "When a 6LR receives a NS(EARO) registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR, it SHOULD challenge by responding with a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Requested"". Under what circumstances would a challenge not be warranted? In other words, could this SHOULD be a MUST? 2. The following sentence in 7.1 reads, "The 6LR must protect itself against overflows and reject excessive registration with a status 2 "Neighbor Cache Full"". Does that need to be a MUST instead of a must?