Telechat Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-secdir-telechat-roca-2020-10-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-11-03
Requested 2020-10-22
Authors Christoph Loibl, Robert Raszuk, Susan Hares
Draft last updated 2020-10-23
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -17 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Dale Worley (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-secdir-telechat-roca-2020-10-23
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/O0S0O9mIQh4uCRrygDjkuuUmRfs
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 22)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-10-23

Review
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-secdir-telechat-roca-2020-10-23

Hello,

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.

Summary: Ready

The security considerations section is kept minimum since it only adds IPv6
format support to the "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"
(draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-26) document where the full Security Consideration
discussion takes place. I also believe there is no added security issue.

Typo:
- Introduction: typo, add a final "s" to propose in: "and propose a subset..."

Cheers,    Vincent