Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02
review-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02-secdir-telechat-kelly-2025-04-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2025-04-15
Requested 2025-02-09
Authors Brian E. Carpenter , Suresh Krishnan , David Farmer
I-D last updated 2025-04-24 (Latest revision 2025-04-24)
Completed reviews Artart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Arnt Gulbrandsen (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -02 by Scott G. Kelly (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -02 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -02 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott G. Kelly
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XT5RMN9JRKnXkBq8ecrABw0E9vA
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-04-03
review-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02-secdir-telechat-kelly-2025-04-03-00
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.

The summary of the review is ready (maybe with a minor issue).

From the abstract, this document specifies the approval process for changes to
the IPv6 Address Space registry. It also updates RFC 7249.

The security considerations section says only this:

"Carefully reviewed address allocation mechanisms are necessary for any form of
address-based security."

I don't disagree with this, but I had 2 reactions: first, I expected this
section to either state that this doc adds no new considerations over those in
the doc(s) it updates (e.g. RFC 7249), or to state any new considerations.
Second, the phrase "address-based security" gave me pause. We don't recommend
basing security on unauthenticated addresses, do we? I wonder if it would be
better not to risk leaving the reader with the wrong impression.