[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-ug-05
"David Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net> Fri, 22 November 2013 19:05 UTC
Return-Path: <dbharrington@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0771AE21E for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:05:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.125
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDCtL5vrAEy2 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1C71AE086 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.98]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id siWL1m00927AodY53j57hL; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:05:07 +0000
Received: from JV6RVH1 ([67.189.237.137]) by omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sj571m0072yZEBF3fj576B; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:05:07 +0000
From: David Harrington <dbharrington@comcast.net>
To: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-ug.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:05:10 -0500
Message-ID: <000001cee7b5$c41cc640$4c5652c0$@comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac7ntRpR8+feNhrqQDqlEMCCOP1l0g==
Content-Language: en-us
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1385147107; bh=+NRxPa6gptlltrsV1rP5sXdI/hVfwWMzxcifMGxf4J0=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=P4zK0a8yQyXmK4BNQ8dp6ciiFASVK4cLRQbTBXsurjZPCMZ3H2Vuy5dBFkOUFk8a0 5e4fLt3yTH+H5A2J+OKTueCIDuJUlwGI/b0FATMqjUenshw3sLqaUB8J4PxJsd1d9T 8Ql04o7JA5fLUcnOpFKaTXK0zn+luqtZza1g/nimt/Oti9+yNSQksrbXWsxW1fK37r O6GvWZqdqBFE1HhNsGcCDzKHZ2xtdAd/r7Mm6dG6DGJ7iGfoHCJCFq/jb0vNuhGpmI wnlwopkS383ooKhOfZ4rPHOEH2hV2biym/0OVV2xq7E2eG6y+wOOsld9lf+uPFfk6M MdnX4QKYRjGoQ==
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-ug-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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:05:16 -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. The IPv6 addressing architecture includes a unicast interface identifier that is used in the creation of many IPv6 addresses. Interface identifiers are formed by a variety of methods. This document clarifies that the bits in an interface identifier have no meaning and that the entire identifier should be treated as an opaque value. In particular, RFC 4291 defines a method by which the Universal and Group bits of an IEEE link-layer address are mapped into an IPv6 unicast interface identifier. This document clarifies that those two bits are significant only in the process of deriving interface identifiers from an IEEE link-layer address, and updates RFC 4291 accordingly. The document states "No new security exposures or issues are raised by this document." In my opinion, this is accurate. David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net +1-603-828-1401
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-ug-05 David Harrington