Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2014-06-09
Requested 2014-05-30
Authors Kiran K. Chittimaneni , Tim Chown , Lee Howard , Victor Kuarsingh , Yanick Pouffary , Éric Vyncke
I-D last updated 2014-06-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Steve Hanna
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2014-06-12
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 provides advice for enterprise administrators working
on deploying IPv6 in their networks. I don't have much experience in
this area (deploying IPv6 on an enterprise network) and I'm not even
an IPv6 security expert but... I found the document easy to understand,
thorough, and apparently based on real experiences. I was happy to see
that security issues were thoroughly covered throughout and that simple,
practical recommendations were given. I did find a few tiny typos and
possible clarifications that are listed at the end of this email.

In my view, this document is Ready with nits. The nits are tiny so
they can be handled in AUTH48 or whenever the next draft is posted.




Small Typos in draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-05.txt

* At the bottom of page 12, there is an extra close parenthesis
  after the word "implemented".

* On page 17, "outside worlds" should be "outside world".

* On page 20, at the end of section 3.5, "included both" should be
  "including both". At least, I think so. It's not quite clear what
  this parenthetical comment means. If it means that use of NPTv6
  can be chosen independently of whether PA or PI addresses are
  used, this text might be better:

   Use of NPTv6 can be chosen independently from how addresses are
   assigned and routed within the internal network, how prefixes are
   routed towards the Internet, or whether PA or PI addresses are