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

Adam Montville via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 03 January 2020 16:04 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Montville via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd.all@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Montville <adam.montville.sdo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <157806749349.9008.754513854275764571@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 08:04:53 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-VhQE-KhgDkonpusgk4rDmRHBEM>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12

Reviewer: Adam Montville
Review result: Ready

Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks, which
guards against address theft, is almost ready for publication.

There are two points that may warrant attention by the ADs:

1. In the first exchange with a 6LR: "When a 6LR receives a NS(EARO)
registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR, it SHOULD challenge by responding
with a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Requested"". Under what
circumstances would a challenge not be warranted? In other words, could this
SHOULD be a MUST?

2. The following sentence in 7.1 reads, "The 6LR must protect itself against
overflows and reject excessive registration with a status 2 "Neighbor Cache
Full"". Does that need to be a MUST instead of a must?

[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6l… Adam Montville via Datatracker
Re: [secdir] [6lo] Secdir last call review of dra… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)