[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09

"Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> Sun, 22 July 2018 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2625A12872C; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 01:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org header.d=gondrom.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gb4QUHw7_sRU; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 01:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gondrom.org (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB8C1130E69; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 01:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seraph (60-249-114-118.HINET-IP.hinet.net [60.249.114.118]) by gondrom.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 507C9642EC; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:55:41 +0200 (CEST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=nKNgq/xWcpkcTNVwcPEILNEtwFsJnMp0ZqhEU51Kr+qFvUrZ57gC/UgOpsNX/X/WrUN7AVpQjm5n4eOmwy01FMAAaCj1cwjthaq6i0wmXny2f5L4EaPX6Ta+HXEYDUzEwHOPUiwLfU5Er0TuqXUStqsaiuq9kRtIcsFy49NqiFw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language;
From: "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis.all@ietf.org>
Cc: <ipv6@ietf.org>, <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, <otroan@employees.org>, <suresh@kaloom.com>, <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>, <john.loughney@gmail.com>, <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 16:55:35 +0800
Message-ID: <047701d42199$c67e8400$537b8c00$@gondrom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0478_01D421DC.D4A43500"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdQhlQ5ntbyuUydiTQuODMgQHYbIfw==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/0D6YnrVNgt3zB7QeL4U8YrL7phE>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
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: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 08:55:51 -0000

Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom

Review result: Ok

 

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.

 

Overall the document is an update to RFC6434 and looks ok, ready to go. 

In my review, I did not find any material concerns with the document, and no
nits. 

The security considerations are nearly identical to RFC6434 with the added
paragraph in relation to IPv4 networking and reference to RFC7123, which is
ok. From the overall  new document text, it also is ok. 

 

Ready to release. 

 

Best regards, Tobias