[secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 09 February 2018 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@computer.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 B4D5712D777; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:39:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana.all@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151819077870.1168.11205080066617672948@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:39:38 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/PeOdky4ld4GmPh0UGDJtT9_rOA0>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 09 Feb 2018 15:39:39 -0000

Reviewer: Barry Leiba
Review result: Ready

This document fills a gap created by RFC 6275 by creating a necessary IANA
registry.  The document is well written and ready to go, with no security
implications that I can imagine.

I read Al Morton's OpsDir review.  Commenting on that:
- I think the document can go ahead with or without the changes that Al
suggests, but... - I agree that it'd be useful to show the reserved bits in the
registry table, except that I'd give the reference for it as RFC 4861, not
6275. - The text in Section 4 already does say what the registration policy is,
and I don't think "or IESG Approval" should be added. - I don't think it's
necessary to add "updates 6275", though I wouldn't object to it. - I agree that
adding section references would be nice.  I found the fields easily by
searching on their names, but I'm a general fan of using section references to
make things clearer to readers.