Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-07
review-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-07-secdir-lc-wallace-2020-05-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-05-27
Requested 2020-05-13
Authors Carlos J. Bernardos , Alain Mourad
Draft last updated 2020-05-26
Completed reviews Iotdir Last Call review of -07 by Jaime Jimenez (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -08 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Ines Robles (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carl Wallace
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-07-secdir-lc-wallace-2020-05-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/GPwSZRgA2MxE2M1K06xEAfKCEAk
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-05-26
review-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-07-secdir-lc-wallace-2020-05-26-00
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.

This document proposes extensions to DHCPv6 protocols to enable a DHCPv6 client
or a DHCPv6 relay to indicate a preferred SLAP quadrant to the server, so that
the server allocates the MAC address to the given client out of the quadrant
requested by relay or client.

The document is generally clear but I do have a few comments listed below. That
the security considerations were incorporated by reference seems fine.

- The document should expand acronyms on first use, for example U/L in first
sentence of section 1, instead of leaving these to referenced documents.

- Figures 3 and 4 reference a timer expiring but the prose does not. Including
verbiage similar to second paragraph in section 4.3 of
draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-05 may be worth doing.

- Section 3 may benefit from providing rationale for the preferences given,
i.e., why might ELI/SAI be good, etc. Framing the criteria in terms of the
quadrants instead of type of device may be helpful in addition as well, if a
best practices type guidance is reasonable.

- Also in Section 3, I am not familiar with the IEEE specs that govern the
addresses associated with the SAI quadrant, but Section 3 created an impression
that a client has a freehand to choose between SAI and other options that
wouldn't seem appropriate for a quadrant governed by other standards.