AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi authors,
  I found this draft generally well written and easy to read but I would like a couple of things fixed in it before I send it off to IETF Last call.

* Abstract

OLD:
This document specifies a Router Advertisement option to communicate
NAT64 prefixes to hosts.

NEW:
This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery option to be used in Router
Advertisements to communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts.

Also make the same change in the Introduction as well.

* Section 2

Maybe worth adding a reference to DoH (RFC8484) here in addition to RFC7858.

* Section 4

Please use a documentation prefix, say 192.0.2.0/24, instead of the RFC1918 address currently used in the example.

* Section 5

The use of the term “lifetime” or “life time” to denote both the intended period of use and the value of the Lifetime field which is one-eighth of the intended value is a bit confusing. Can you deconflict this by calling the field “ShortLifetime" or something similar?

* Section 7

PvD: Define before use and add and a reference to [draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains]

* Section 9

"Providing all
   configuration in Router Advertisements increases security by ensuring
   that no other protocols can be abused by malicious attackers to
   provide hosts with invalid configuration.”

This is not strictly true, right? e.g. Someone can still use PCP to override the Pref64 information from the RA. Suggest rewording to something like this

"Providing all configuration in Router Advertisements reduces the attack surface to be targeted by malicious attackers to provide hosts with invalid configuration as compared to distributing the configuration through multiple different mechanisms that need to be secured independently.”

Thanks
Suresh