Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-02-09
Requested 2017-01-26
Authors Tianxiang Li , Cong Liu , Yong Cui
I-D last updated 2017-02-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Hilarie Orman
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2017-02-16
	 Security review of DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues

Do not be alarmed.  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

The document gives advice on how servers and clients can handle DHCP cases
in which the client requests a particular prefix length and the server
cannot exactly match it.  

This statement is very difficult to interpret:
"the server SHOULD provide the prefix with the shortest length
   possible which is closest to the prefix-length hint value."
This alternative in section 3.6 makes more sense:
"assign a prefix of at least the hint length (or shorter) if one is

I do not see any obvious security flaws, but my opinion is tempered by
the lack of prior discussion.  The security considerations refer to
RFC3633 "IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6", and that refers to ongoing
development of IPsec for DHCPv6.  As nearly as I can tell, that work
was never done.  That makes it difficult to have confidence in the "no
new security considerations" claim.

Some nits:

Remove the comma in the first sentence of the introduction.

"prefix which length" should be "prefix with length" or possibly
"prefix whose length".

"The servers usually has a record" should be "The server usually has a record".

No comma in "When the client wants the same prefix back from the
server, and would prefer ...".