Re: [secdir] secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-07


Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D731C3A02BE for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XTfjIPpoScg0 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DE383A00B2 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 17so25082931ilj.3 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2zC9OdYRirSqjW0Kj/du01aUnDX6ob2t7VwH6R+GEBo=; b=NlIcszUv1i4ibLzcq/uC+rQKn5by6WRG067iQS+awqFzlW+9ikbt42z+vE5uW2M+6G FQXVVR+9LTCn5Wp7IIZy6V4sOsSnqufug8K1/PRzBmKx23zlqYbeifbNeLzCs5INte1I qBhWzHB799pPZcTjUc6Oj59O05z5ZKEcLDEDzJO3NCRyXGKaQGmvYCju9Hw6TVUqgqqK prLQASR7aE8D8PqUk8FzBFMcNL9AqYf0Xn7f/wCRYPxM/y1iS2F0zww8diDSh3EYG3bC 4HvYohGQRk9EhDvqbo3Vcjj0OFnPsV+AAc0Mr2Jhps7MyxzH63c1g8eUgFtde0azyMHd +HHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2zC9OdYRirSqjW0Kj/du01aUnDX6ob2t7VwH6R+GEBo=; b=Mu8ZpxWca7/3WLU9Uej29WSuLv7USv0860iEPmu7JhaowKzQ4do0XXDQXh9WDr1H+V 5CElwl6ztN5m4dIaApy9PFPPU9cBcnZiaL3g3mxt+++AsobOd5BCr+figxQBTDwPiFze umZy0NJ0g/pXpvqv7JJGQ6v9nL/th7Tz5kda5TKQn8jFlcwvfnW6+tznGMyyi0AfJi+/ eJ0sHWSdTHCDrARUdyLTPfqqrxZbXrhW6svFTPq9CLHG3qlVzoa3zHEpXO/wEadMIMCZ sKvMIvahp7P1GWOFTaFNoTP/WbjPgesgJMYNyQJw8phOZOGyod4ORfKEGH57K9FQBwCJ R8BA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BmoJ5RtF/6i9myuZ//h7BZ4Zc4hPnBSkE6hSbcD9kAkzyqBT8 31T6khzwn8IwOlP37O2I654QfZSjSThRNwRW8a6xrQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxFtZZnujXv0/h8hAp3axf2DrGkImXWbVwokMPnGt54/AiZymmNDNcOSc4+BjiCUHFi7rqiuU72n2qQt7Ou+U=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:8318:: with SMTP id f24mr7073581ild.288.1590603605067; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 20:19:48 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Carl Wallace <>
Cc: secdir <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dbe94b05a6a542fb"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 18:20:08 -0000

Hi Carl,

Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please see inline below.

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:22 PM Carl Wallace <>

> 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 proposes extensions to DHCPv6 protocols to enable a DHCPv6
> client or a DHCPv6 relay to indicate a preferred SLAP quadrant to the
> server, so that the server allocates the MAC address to the given client
> out of the quadrant requested by relay or client.
> The document is generally clear but I do have a few comments listed below.
> That the security considerations were incorporated by reference seems fine.
> - The document should expand acronyms on first use, for example U/L in
> first sentence of section 1, instead of leaving these to referenced
> documents.

[Carlos] Thanks. We've reviewed it and tried to expand them all the first
time they appear in version -09. Some of them are a bit tricky, as they are
too much "well known and widely used" by the IEEE community.

> - Figures 3 and 4 reference a timer expiring but the prose does not.
> Including verbiage similar to second paragraph in section 4.3 of
> draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-05 may be worth doing.

[Carlos] Thanks. Done in future version -09.

> - Section 3 may benefit from providing rationale for the preferences
> given, i.e., why might ELI/SAI be good, etc. Framing the criteria in terms
> of the quadrants instead of type of device may be helpful in addition as
> well, if a best practices type guidance is reasonable.

[Carlos] Since the section is meant to be just some examples, we prefer to
keep it as is, but I see and acknowledge your points. It's just that the
goal is not to provide normative guidance, but just some examples for the
need of the SLAP quadrant selection mechanisms.

> - Also in Section 3, I am not familiar with the IEEE specs that govern the
> addresses associated with the SAI quadrant, but Section 3 created an
> impression that a client has a freehand to choose between SAI and other
> options that wouldn't seem appropriate for a quadrant governed by other
> standards.
> [Carlos] Multiple protocols can be used, and the idea is that the DHCP
extensions specified in this document is one of the possible protocols. As
far as I know, discussion is ongoing in IEEE and this draft is part of the
discussion as one existing mechanism.