Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-02
review-ietf-v6ops-clatip-02-secdir-lc-hallam-baker-2014-06-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2014-06-10
Requested 2014-05-30
Draft last updated 2014-06-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Phillip Hallam-Baker
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-clatip-02-secdir-lc-hallam-baker-2014-06-05
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-06-05

Review
review-ietf-v6ops-clatip-02-secdir-lc-hallam-baker-2014-06-05

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 document is simply an assignment request for a reserved IP address
block for a scheme described in [RFC6333] and [RFC6877]. The block
previously assigned to DSLite is now assigned to related,
non-competing functions.

The document would be rather easier to make sense of if the start and
the end of the address range had been given.

192.0.0.0/29 is 192.0.0.0...192.0.0.7

This does not matter much because RFC6333 actually assigns specific
addresses for specific functions within this range. Exhaustion is not
really an issue since in extremis the response could be more tunnels.