[6lo] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-14: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of small comments:

1) Sec 2.2: If actually all terms from all the RFC listed in section 2.2 are
used, all the reference would need to be normative. Maybe double-check this!

2) Sec 3: I would have expected that section 3 says something about backward
compatibility (what if not all nodes in a network are updated?) and gives a
strong recommend to use this scheme (or even obsolete the old one?)

3) Nit sec 4.4: s/it an be found/it can be found/

4) Sce 6: Use of normative language: s/The node may use a same Crypto-ID/The
node MAY use a same Crypto-ID/

5) Security Consideration Section: Is there a new risk/possible attack because
computational complexity of the proposed scheme is higher than the one in
RFC8505? Could that be used as an attack against a central node? Would it be
necessary to rate limit requests somehow? Or is there already a rate limit
(that should be mentioned here)?