Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02
review-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02-secdir-lc-sahib-2024-11-09-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-11-11 | |
| Requested | 2024-10-21 | |
| Authors | Jonathan Hui | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-11-09 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Gyan Mishra
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Shivan Kaul Sahib Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Adrian Farrel Iotdir Telechat review of -02 by Thomas Fossati Intdir Telechat review of -02 by Juan-Carlos Zúñiga |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Shivan Kaul Sahib |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-bbOj-RVGjDn-nSkfezmMSbGQAI | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2024-11-09 |
review-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-02-secdir-lc-sahib-2024-11-09-00
The document generally looks straight-forward. However, it's surprising to me that the Security Considerations section completely defers to RFC 4861. For example, surely a device lying about being a SNAC router would have some added implications for DoS capabilities like mentioned in Security Considerations section of RFC 4861 and RFC 3756? I think it would be worth spelling out what happens in that scenario. Nit: In the introduction, "Stub Network Auto-Configuring Router (SNAC) router" says router twice, can just remove the first "Router".