[Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05

<kathleen.moriarty@emc.com> Sun, 04 December 2011 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD19B21F8880 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 12:56:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.409, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0CoRfpuN3iGb for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 12:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E31E21F8801 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 12:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id pB4KujC1023014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:56:46 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.129]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:56:30 -0500
Received: from mxhub03.corp.emc.com (mxhub03.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.105]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id pB4KuUWC015151; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:56:30 -0500
Received: from mx06a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.238]) by mxhub03.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.105]) with mapi; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:56:29 -0500
From: kathleen.moriarty@emc.com
To: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-exthdr.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:56:28 -0500
Thread-Topic: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05
Thread-Index: AcyyxzGPGrEiwmG0SJSLj5x3zoS31w==
Message-ID: <AE31510960917D478171C79369B660FA0E1A6E8A6F@MX06A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: Jim_Hoagland@symantec.com, ek@google.com, manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com, jhw@apple.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:56:54 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05
Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty
Review Date: 12/04/2011
IETF LC End Date: 12/05/2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:  The draft is ready with nits.
This document describes the issues that can arise when defining new extension headers and discusses the alternative extension mechanisms in IPv6.  It also provides a format for defining new IPv6 extension headers that would allow implementations to process past unknown extension headers.


Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract, third sentence: Unless 'alternative' is an official term used for the purpose described, the word 'alternate' would read better.

Introduction: Last sentence of 1st paragraph:  Consider removing the word 'intends'.  Since this defines the extension, you can just state that.
Change to:  "This document defines a standard format for IPv6 extension headers."

Second paragraph: Consider removing the word "Also" at the start of the sentence.  The transition is not needed.

Third paragraph, consider adding a couple of commas in the first sentence, it reads better:
Change to: "Any IPv6 header or option that has hop-by-hop behavior, and is
   intended for general use in the public IPv6 Internet, could be
   subverted to create an attack on IPv6 routers processing packets
   containing such a header or option."

Section 3, third paragraph:
Remove the word "So" at the start of the sentence.
Change to; "New IPv6 Extension
   Header(s) having hop-by-hop behaviour MUST NOT be created or
   specified."
Third sentence: consider changing to (add a word after alternative, perhaps solution?):
"New options for the existing Hop-by-Hop Header
   SHOULD NOT be created or specified unless no alternative solution is feasible.

Section 4, first sentence:
It could read better, consider changing it to the following suggestion:
"Any IPv6 Extension Headers are defined in future MUST use the consistent format defined
   in Figure 1, including the restrictions specified in Section 3 and in [RFC2460]."