Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05
review-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05-secdir-lc-weis-2017-09-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-09-26
Requested 2017-09-12
Authors David Schinazi , Tommy Pauly
Draft last updated 2017-09-28
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Zitao Wang (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Jon Mitchell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Brian Weis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Weis
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05-secdir-lc-weis-2017-09-28
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2017-09-28
review-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05-secdir-lc-weis-2017-09-28-00
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.

From the Introduction, "This document expands on "Happy Eyeballs" [RFC6555], a
technique of reducing user-visible delays on dual-stack hosts." It lists a set
of steps by which a client can asynchronously perform IPv6 and IPv4 DNS
queries, and also semantics on how to handle the replies such that the user
delay is minimized.

The Security Considerations section simply states "This memo has no direct
security considerations.", and I believe this is true. However, I wonder about
"indirect" security considerations. RFC 6555 warns several times against
breaking a browser's same-origin policy, which seems to me to be an "indirect"
security consideration. I realize that browser policies have changed
considerably since RFC 6555 was published, and I personally do not know if
same-origin is still in general use or whether there are other newer but
similar issues of which an implementor should be aware. But if there are, then
this section should note them. Otherwise, I consider the document ready to be
published.