Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-22
review-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-22-secdir-early-lonvick-2026-05-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 23)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2026-05-23
Requested 2026-05-09
Requested by Mahesh Jethanandani
Authors Chongfeng Xie , Chenhao Ma , Xing Li , Gyan Mishra , Thomas Graf
I-D last updated 2026-06-08 (Latest revision 2026-05-28)
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -22 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Intdir Early review of -23 by Tatuya Jinmei
Assignment Reviewer Chris M. Lonvick
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/O5WkNWPNLta34C-026ZFKtYPEoU
Reviewed revision 22 (document currently at 23)
Result Has nits
Completed 2026-05-28
review-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-22-secdir-early-lonvick-2026-05-28-00
Hi,

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 summary of the review is Ready with nits.

The specification is clear and understandable. I found nothing of concern in it.

I would like to see a statement in the Security Considerations section like the
statement in RFC 7915. Something like:
   The use of stateless IP/ICMP translators does not introduce any new
   security issues beyond the security issues that are already present
   in the IPv4 and IPv6 protocols and in the routing protocols that are
   used to make the packets reach the translator.
Similarly, the Security Considerations section should reference the Security
Considerations section of RFCs 7915 and 6052.

Regards,
Chris