[6lo] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12

Al Morton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 31 December 2019 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC9D120052; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:02:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Al Morton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd.all@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.115.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Message-ID: <157782256205.23374.9622379609196664427@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:02:42 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/_HYSscExNs0pMhpdqibgkV2ccEI>
Subject: [6lo] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 20:02:42 -0000

Reviewer: Al Morton
Review result: Has Nits

This is the OPS-DIR review of -12
1)  "This specification introduces a new token called a cryptographic
   identifier (Crypto-ID) that is used to prove indirectly the ownership
   of an address that is being registered by means of [RFC8505]." 
during Neighbor Discovery in 
  "...a 6LoWPAN Low Power Lossy
   Network (LLN), typically a stub network connected to a larger IP
   network via a Border Router called a 6LBR per [RFC6775]."
2) This seems like a worthwhile update to RFC8505.
     The section describing the Update aspect is helpful, but ...
     Nit: there should also a sentence in the Abstract indicating the Update status.
     The scope of operation is very limited, hence no operational issues detected.
3) The SEC-DIR review will likely be more interesting: this reviewer's experience
    doesn't foster review of LLN in any depth.
4) The Doc Shepherd's form indicates that the last 4 versions benefited from review by
    knowledgeable persons in the Security Area.