Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06
review-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06-secdir-lc-leiba-2024-10-23-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-10-18 | |
Requested | 2024-10-04 | |
Authors | XiPeng Xiao , Eduard V , Eduard Metz , Gyan Mishra , Nick Buraglio | |
I-D last updated | 2024-10-23 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06
by Ines Robles
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Barry Leiba (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Magnus Westerlund (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Barry Leiba |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/WQKoyJYaJk7f_9mPPgdINAmisFc | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2024-10-23 |
review-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06-secdir-lc-leiba-2024-10-23-00
Thanks for this concise, useful collection/summary that will surely be a good reference and index going forward. It seems quite ready to go. I have only a small nit-level comment; please take it or leave it as you see appropriate: — Section 3.1 — Since all the three causes of ND issues are addressed, MBBv6 solves all ND issues. “MBBv6 solves all ND issues” seems an overly broad statement. :-) I know what you mean, but I don’t think this sentence helps say it. I suggest just removing it, but you could try to re-word. (Similar comment for FBBv6-P2MP at the end of 3.2.)