Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-10-09
Requested 2012-09-14
Authors Xing Li, Congxiao Bao, Dan Wing, Ramji Vaithianathan, Geoff Huston
Draft last updated 2012-10-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Tina Tsou
Assignment Reviewer Tina Tsou 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-secdir-lc-tsou-2012-10-18
Review completed: 2012-10-18


Dear all,

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.


It basically discusses the case, when there are no readily available IPv4 public address to embed into the IPv6 address.


It recommends the use of the Interface IP address as a sub object. So the interface IP address of the Translator would be used as a sub object? As there might be a number of hosts connected to the translator ( connected to a translator
 via a switch), would a single interface ip address suffice in such a case? 


Is it possible to include one public IPv4 address and ports (as in case of PAT) to embed the address.


Thank you,