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 rev. 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
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-10-23
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 04)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2014-10-23

Review
review-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-10-23

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