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

Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 23 July 2021 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285673A126D; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: 6lo@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-plc.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.35.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <162706573910.16734.11893490525630250602@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:42:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-ibANlLWEOtEKmagMyOgDJPA4C4>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:42:19 -0000

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.

My other comments have been addressed.

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