Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05
review-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05-secdir-lc-housley-2017-10-05-01
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-10-12 | |
Requested | 2017-09-28 | |
Authors | Sheng Jiang , Zongpeng Du , Brian E. Carpenter , Qiong Sun | |
I-D last updated | 2017-10-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Geoff Huston (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Fred Baker (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Catherine Meadows (diff) Genart Telechat review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2017-10-06 |
review-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05-secdir-lc-housley-2017-10-05-01
I 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. Document: draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2017-10-05 IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-12 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: Has Issues No Major Concerns Minor Concerns This document uses "DHCPv6-PD" and "DHCPv6 PD". At first, I was going to recommend picking one spelling. However, RFC 3633 does not define either of these. So, some explanation is needed in addition to being consistent. In Section 3, the document says that roles can be locally defined. If I properly understood the rest of the document, this is just a indirect way to state the prefix size. If I got that right, it would help to explain this to the reader as soon as possible. In Section 3.2.1, please give some examples of device identities. Are we talking about a serial number or something else? In Section 4.1, the document says: It should decide the length of the requested prefix and request it by the mechanism described in Section 6. However, Section 6 talks about: ... Thus it would be possible to apply an intended policy for every device in a simple way, without traditional configuration files. I do not see how the mechanisms in Section 6 increases the allocation for a single router. It seems to increase the allocation to all routers with a particular role. Nits Throughout the document, I find that "administrator(s)" grabs my attention. I suggest that "administrators" would be better for the reader. In Section 1, please spell out the first use of "ASA". In Section 3.1: s/with minimum efforts/with minimum effort/