[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-05

Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4851A00AD; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:07:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tET-mwG5LnJO; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CEB1A01E7; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:07:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=841; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393873662; x=1395083262; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-id; bh=+o3CZ8J4eYy3A0S2b6l9BIaaJ8jHSoh9eB5fP8OsPXg=; b=Iw3MhZRsqCQDvJR/pkZ5Jk8wT1c2OjvSsu9iuiAGb94QIPKO8Aadi+Iy Wwpep1ECrK/kO8J5/l7G2rEFL6GYFZMiUabd8AhsHDjqUx5NtBIBWrthC gS+GWT/zYdj/ZqHPGc6L+2VmkpyGqtT3b2fok0ezFog7t1o5PWK4VRjzY 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAN7RFFOrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABagwbDCxZ0gmQCgX6ICsxDF5MYBIlLoRyDTg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,579,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="107472158"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2014 19:07:42 +0000
Received: from sjc-xdm-112 (sjc-xdm-112.cisco.com []) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s23J7fDq003054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:07:41 GMT
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:07:41 -0800
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1403031101470.22583@sjc-xdm-112.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1403031103011.22583@sjc-xdm-112.cisco.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/heUHnAGn6tzrBYXUQ6bCpsJlt7A
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:07:46 -0000


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 looks to be well thought out and almost complete.  I would 
like to see a statement in the Security Considerations section that this 
specification adheres to the Security Considerations section of RFC 3315, 
and augments it by describing the disposition of unknown messages.

Other than that, the only very minor nit that I have is that the second 
and third paragraphs of the Security Considerations section are a single 
thought and should be combined.