Last Call Review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-
review-ietf-behave-64-analysis-secdir-lc-tsou-2012-02-23-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2012-02-28 | |
| Requested | 2012-02-05 | |
| Authors | Reinaldo Penno , Tarun Saxena , Mohamed Boucadair , Senthil Sivakumar | |
| I-D last updated | 2012-02-23 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Telechat review of -??
by David L. Black
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Completed | 2012-02-23 |
review-ietf-behave-64-analysis-secdir-lc-tsou-2012-02-23-00
I don't see any security concerns as we don't define any new protocol. I have a small suggestion though: The Abstract of the draft somehow doesn't truly reflect the actual description of the draft. This draft analyzes how NAT 64 confirms to RFC 4966, which problems mentioned in 4966 are solved, which are not solved etc. Whereas the abstract mentions "This document evaluate how the new stateful translation mechanisms avoid the problems that caused the IETF to deprecate NAT-PT." I think we can be more specific here. Sent from my iPad