Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-06
review-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-06-secdir-lc-jain-2025-02-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-02-12 | |
| Requested | 2025-01-29 | |
| Authors | Ron Bonica | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-04-24 (Latest revision 2025-04-24) | |
| 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 | Prachi Jain |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/EWDoWIJJSQHmNvgcuhzdLOQqvcc | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 12) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-02-11 |
review-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-06-secdir-lc-jain-2025-02-11-00
The document is well-written, and I agree that the security concern surrounding the IPv6 Router Alert Option is valid. I don’t have much to add from a security standpoint, everything looks in order. Regarding the Security Considerations section, I have a nit: please adjust the RFC references to align with the proper citation style. For example: 'These security considerations can be found in [RFC2711], [RFC6192], and [RFC6398].' Additionally, in the IANA Considerations section, please ensure that the word ‘Deprecated’ is placed in "".