Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02
review-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-10-23-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-10-27 | |
Requested | 2014-10-16 | |
Authors | Wesley George , Carlos Pignataro | |
I-D last updated | 2014-10-23 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Francis Dupont
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Tobias Gondrom (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Tim Chown (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Alvaro Retana (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tobias Gondrom |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 04) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-10-23 |
review-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-10-23-00
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. The draft is informational and identifies and analyses gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. The document appears ready for publication. The security considerations section (section 8) only states that changing the address family used for MPLS network operation does not fundamentally alter the security considerations of the existing protocol. Which is basically correct. It could have been interesting to look at the gaps analysis from a security perspective and see which of the MPLS IPv6-only gaps has security implications that need to be addressed. I.e. which gaps are security related. However, that is not essential. Comment: 1. Abstract and Section 1: the sentence "This document is not intended to highlight a particular vendor's implementation (or lack thereof)" sounds odd. Is there a WG discussion background or why is this document speaking of one "particular vendor's implementation"? Nits: - section 3.3.1.1. EVPN formating: do you want to add one line at the end of the section: "Gap: Minor...." I did not find anything else in my review. Thank you and best regards. Tobias