Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-02-23-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-03-01 | |
| Requested | 2017-02-01 | |
| Authors | Bob Hinden, Steve Deering | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-02-23 | |
| Completed reviews |
Intdir Early review of -06 by Brian Haberman
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Rich Salz (diff) Genart Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Menachem Dodge (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by John Drake (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Rich Salz |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-02-23 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 07 (document currently at 09) | |
| Review result | Has Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2017-02-23 |
Review
review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-02-23
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. Summary: ready with nits. Sec 2.1, What's the meaning of scope? Sec 2.2.3, Example 3, should the incorrect example be ":2:1" (i.e., add a missing colon and digit two) Is it worth mentioning that :: is only valid for the ipv6 syntax and not the dotted ipv4 syntax? (Just asking, not recommending) Sec 2.4.1, penultimate paragraph: looks like some words got chopped from the middle line? The security section is fine. -- Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies Member, OpenSSL Dev Team IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz