Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02
review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-secdir-telechat-leiba-2018-02-09-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2018-03-06 | |
| Requested | 2018-02-05 | |
| Authors | Ole Trøan | |
| Draft last updated | 2018-02-09 | |
| Completed reviews |
Intdir Early review of -02
by
Carlos J. Bernardos
(diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -02 by Al Morton (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -02 by Barry Leiba (diff) Genart Telechat review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Barry Leiba |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-secdir-telechat-leiba-2018-02-09
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2018-02-09 |
review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-secdir-telechat-leiba-2018-02-09-00
This document fills a gap created by RFC 6275 by creating a necessary IANA registry. The document is well written and ready to go, with no security implications that I can imagine. I read Al Morton's OpsDir review. Commenting on that: - I think the document can go ahead with or without the changes that Al suggests, but... - I agree that it'd be useful to show the reserved bits in the registry table, except that I'd give the reference for it as RFC 4861, not 6275. - The text in Section 4 already does say what the registration policy is, and I don't think "or IESG Approval" should be added. - I don't think it's necessary to add "updates 6275", though I wouldn't object to it. - I agree that adding section references would be nice. I found the fields easily by searching on their names, but I'm a general fan of using section references to make things clearer to readers. -- Barry