Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Thnaks Russ, all valid comments. We'll take care of them
at the end of Last Call.

Regards
   Brian

On 06/10/2017 09:15, Russ Housley wrote:
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> I 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2017-10-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-12
> IESG Telechat date: Unknown
> 
> Summary: Has Issues
> 
> I did not review the state machines in detail.  I assume that others
> that are far more familiar with PIM have done s detailed review of them.
> 
> 
> No Major Concerns
> 
> 
> Minor Concerns
> 
> This document uses "DHCPv6-PD" and "DHCPv6 PD".  At first, I was going
> to recommend picking one spelling.  However, RFC 3633 does not define
> either of these.  So, some explanation is needed in addition to being
> consistent.
> 
> In Section 3, the document says that roles can be locally defined.  If
> I properly understood the rest of the document, this is just a indirect
> way to state the prefix size.  If I got that right, it would help to
> explain this to the reader as soon as possible.
> 
> In Section 3.2.1, please give some examples of device identities.  Are
> we talking about a serial number or something else?
> 
> In Section 4.1, the document says:
> 
>   It should decide the length of the requested prefix and request it by
>   the mechanism described in Section 6.
> 
> However, Section 6 talks about:
> 
>    ...  Thus it would be possible to apply an
>    intended policy for every device in a simple way, without traditional
>    configuration files.
> 
> I do not see how the mechanisms in Section 6 increases the allocation
> for a single router.  It seems to increase the allocation to all routers
> with a particular role.
> 
> 
> Nits
> 
> Throughout the document, I find that "administrator(s)" grabs my
> attention.  I suggest that "administrators" would be better for the
> reader.
> 
> In Section 1, please spell out the first use of "ASA".
> 
> In Section 3.1: s/with minimum efforts/with minimum effort/
> 
> 
>