Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-06
review-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-06-opsdir-lc-jiang-2025-02-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-02-12
Requested 2025-01-29
Authors Ron Bonica
I-D last updated 2025-04-29 (Latest revision 2025-04-29)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Mallory Knodel (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Prachi Jain (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -08 by Bob Halley (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/R--yqZTMJaJyHiHyZ4mWAIbZ0zE
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 13)
Result Has issues
Completed 2025-02-07
review-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-06-opsdir-lc-jiang-2025-02-07-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the OPS directorate's ongoing effort
to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Comments that are not
addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-06
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review Date: 2025-02-08

This Standards Track document deprecates the IPv6 Router Alert Option, and
state new protocols that are standardized in the future must not use the Router
Alert Option. It clearly states to obsoletes RFC2711. This document is
well-written.

I fully agree the author's secure concern of IPv6 Router Alert Option. However,
I am not sure deprecate/obsolete is the right action to take, giving there are
current protocols in use still depend on it. The proposed deprecate/obsolete
action is too much stronger than the author's own statement "Protocols that use
the Router Alert Option may continue to do so, even in future versions." It is
logic conflict, in my opinion. It may be more proper to give a
guidance/recommendation not to use IPv6 Router Alert Option. It may be better
to take deprecate/obsolete action after these current protocols depending on it
have developed new version removed the dependency or themselves out of usage.