Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-ug-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-ug
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-11-28
Requested 2013-11-21
Authors Brian E. Carpenter , Sheng Jiang
I-D last updated 2013-11-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by David Harrington (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David Harrington
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-ug-05-secdir-lc-harrington-2013-11-28
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-11-28
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.

The IPv6 addressing architecture includes a unicast interface
   identifier that is used in the creation of many IPv6 addresses.
   Interface identifiers are formed by a variety of methods.  This
   document clarifies that the bits in an interface identifier have no
   meaning and that the entire identifier should be treated as an opaque
   value.  In particular, RFC 4291 defines a method by which the
   Universal and Group bits of an IEEE link-layer address are mapped
   into an IPv6 unicast interface identifier.  This document clarifies
   that those two bits are significant only in the process of deriving
   interface identifiers from an IEEE link-layer address, and updates
   RFC 4291 accordingly.

The document states "No new security exposures or issues are raised by this
In my opinion, this is accurate.

David Harrington
dbharrington at