Skip to main content

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 revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
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 E. Perkins
I-D last updated 2021-07-23
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Dr. Joseph D. 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 (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -06 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-6lo-plc by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-ibANlLWEOtEKmagMyOgDJPA4C4
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 11)
Result Has nits
Completed 2021-07-23
review-ietf-6lo-plc-06-secdir-telechat-sparks-2021-07-23-00
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 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.