IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification-02
review-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification-02-secdir-lc-yee-2026-04-27-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2026-04-24 | |
| Requested | 2026-04-10 | |
| Authors | Adrian Farrel , Suresh Krishnan | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-04-24 (Latest revision 2026-04-24) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -02
by Yingzhen Qu
Genart IETF Last Call review of -01 by Russ Housley (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Peter E. Yee |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Peter E. Yee |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/wlHw4DGxWbsT2PDfkiZNcguWeoI | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2026-04-27 |
review-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification-02-secdir-lc-yee-2026-04-27-00
Document: draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification Title: Clarifying SRv6 SID List Processing Reviewer: Peter Yee Review result: Has Nits This draft clarifies that Segment Identifier (SID) entries in the Segment Routing Header are not necessarily routable IPv6 addresses but may require mapping to routable and usable IPv6 addresses. From a security perspective, I don’t have great concerns, although the mapping process (not specified in this draft) could potentially cause packets to be misrouted if it makes an incorrect mapping. The document has a few piddling nits that could be fixed. Major concerns: None Minor concerns: None Nits: Page 2, section 1, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after “[RFC8754]”. Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the comma after “addresses)”. Page 4, paragraph after figure: change “128 bit” to “128-bit”. Page 5, figure: in both cases, change “addresses to address”. Each entry is presumably mapped to a single address. Page 5, 2nd paragraph: change “128 bit” to “128-bit”.