[secdir] secdir review of draft-xli-behave-ivi-05

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 14 December 2009 00:16 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; b=ErvZSRDwJ+R9/OXzZAYuvK3sDB2lm1nE95NXgqlXuZqwP+RIbLPevuWVGM51fw7YOK qA7DlItzHbLsaUKfyu0daVzfQ5jXff4MUm9/Gq7xUJ6fgjz275XeUzJQAB2q/tkIp7PM 45ZT14fhJ+k5W4oKzjgg4YVu4GBOXBjCV0AYg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:16:27 -0500
Message-ID: <9abf48a60912131616qc769589qca5c343cb3366676@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: fred@cisco.com, draft-xli-behave-ivi@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-xli-behave-ivi-05
Precedence: list

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 nicely documents what seems to be a rather clever way of helping
IPv6 and IPv4 interoperate, using a sort of address encapsulation
mechanism.  I like the document, I think the scheme it documents is
interesting and useful, and I see no problems with publication
(including from a security perspective; the Security Considerations
section seems adequate).

The document lists its intended status as Informational, while the
tracker shows it as Experimental.  Either could work, of course, but
Informational seems more appropriate here.

Barry
-- 
Barry Leiba  (barryleiba@computer.org)
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/

[secdir] secdir review of draft-xli-behave-ivi-05 Barry Leiba
Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-xli-behave-iv… Xing Li