Re: [6lo] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-06

"Liubing (Remy)" <> Tue, 27 July 2021 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C24B3A1DB9; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kq8n4vEitZiU; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7DE93A1DB7; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GYsS05JGjz6L9kJ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:48:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:00:21 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:00:14 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:00:14 +0800
From: "Liubing (Remy)" <>
To: Robert Sparks <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-06
Thread-Index: AdeCzeG20waqsFskM0iYuCIAoGKJ1w==
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:00:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:00:30 -0000

Hello Robert,

Thank you for your comments. Please find my response inline.

I will fix the typos you mentioned in another mail.

Best regards,

发件人: Robert Sparks via Datatracker [] 
发送时间: 2021年7月24日 2:42
主题: Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-06

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Has Nits

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.

This document is basically ready, but has nits that should be addressed before publication as Proposed Standard RFC.

Context for the ADs, from my LC review:

> This document's primary point is to standardize mappings of ipv6 
> identifiers
for using ipv6 over IEEE 1901.1, 1901.2, and IT-T G.9903 networks. > Those standards are not publicy available, and I have not reviewed how these mappings and the security mechanisms in those protocols interact.

My LC review suggested removing section 5 - Remy's response was that he would check with the WG. I don't find any discussion of that on the WG list? I still think it could be removed or moved to a separate document.
[Remy] I've checked with the WG in IETF110. The WG suggests to keep the section. Please verify it in the minutes.

My other comments have been addressed.

This version introduces a few editorial nits that I will send directly to the editors.