Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-06
review-ietf-6lo-plc-06-secdir-telechat-sparks-2021-07-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-08-10
Requested 2021-07-22
Authors Jianqiang Hou, Bing (Remy) Liu, Yong-Geun Hong, Xiaojun Tang, Charles Perkins
Draft last updated 2021-07-23
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Joseph Touch (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Robert Sparks
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Dan Romascanu
Intdir Telechat review of -06 by Dave Thaler
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6lo-plc-06-secdir-telechat-sparks-2021-07-23
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-ibANlLWEOtEKmagMyOgDJPA4C4
Reviewed rev. 06
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2021-07-23

Review
review-ietf-6lo-plc-06-secdir-telechat-sparks-2021-07-23

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 basically ready, but has nits that should be addressed before publication as Proposed Standard RFC.

Context for the ADs, from my LC review:

> This document's primary point is to standardize mappings of ipv6 identifiers for using ipv6 over IEEE 1901.1, 1901.2, and IT-T G.9903 networks.
> Those standards are not publicy available, and I have not reviewed how these mappings and the security mechanisms in those protocols interact.

My LC review suggested removing section 5 - Remy's response was that he would check with the WG. I don't find any discussion of that on the WG list? I still think it could be removed or moved to a separate document.

My other comments have been addressed. 

This version introduces a few editorial nits that I will send directly to the editors.