Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-05
review-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-05-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2023-03-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-03-18
Requested 2023-02-27
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Brian E. Carpenter , Stuart Cheshire , Bob Hinden
I-D last updated 2023-03-11
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -02 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -05 by Carlos J. Bernardos (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Leif Johansson
Assignment Reviewer Carlos J. Bernardos
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/k675qm6mPH8E_Wgh7Ma4FfZDljE
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-03-11
review-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-05-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2023-03-11-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they
would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along
with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.

The following issue is the only one I found with this document that I think
SHOULD be corrected before publication:

- In some OSes, as indicated in the doc, the interface name basically includes
the MAC address of the interface. Because of this, if used as zone identifier,
it would basically disclose the MAC address. I think some additional security
considerations could be added on the impact that this might have.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

- In section 1, I think the part "Two months later" can be removed.

- While a reader of this document is probably familiar with what percent
encoding is (RFC 3986), given that the document is quite verbose in explaining
the stuff, it might be good to provide some short context about what percent
encoding is.

- RFCs are cited many times in the document (nothing wrong about it, of
course). Sometimes it is done by actually using a cross-reference to the RFC,
while others it is not. I'd understand that only the first time the cross-ref
is used, and then note, but the document does not seem to follow any pattern.
I'd suggest revising this (probably the RFC Editor would do anyway).

- "normalised" --> "normalized"