[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03

Charlie Kaufman <charliek@microsoft.com> Fri, 30 August 2013 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <charliek@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E7E21F9E22; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q53R+HnOpgeB; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0210.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF2F21F9FBA; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2PR03MB592.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.109.35) by BL2PR03MB594.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.109.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.25; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:09:57 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB592.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.169]) by BL2PR03MB592.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.169]) with mapi id 15.00.0745.000; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:09:56 +0000
From: Charlie Kaufman <charliek@microsoft.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ofs-rfc3316bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ofs-rfc3316bis@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03
Thread-Index: Ac6loXJjgnlzJzVlTyaEQMgolbnTmA==
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:09:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4776e66c43414501a1d0a1fe6eec7fca@BL2PR03MB592.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:ed31::4]
x-forefront-prvs: 0954EE4910
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(46102001)(81542001)(83322001)(74662001)(19580395003)(47976001)(50986001)(74316001)(74502001)(81342001)(47446002)(81686001)(80976001)(31966008)(77096001)(56816003)(76576001)(74706001)(74366001)(51856001)(15202345003)(54356001)(15975445006)(53806001)(49866001)(4396001)(47736001)(33646001)(16236675002)(19300405004)(81816001)(69226001)(63696002)(80022001)(65816001)(56776001)(76482001)(54316002)(76176001)(83072001)(77982001)(59766001)(74876001)(79102001)(76786001)(76796001)(3826001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB594; H:BL2PR03MB592.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:2001:4898:80e8:ed31::4; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4776e66c43414501a1d0a1fe6eec7fcaBL2PR03MB592namprd03pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: DuplicateDomain-a84fc36a-4ed7-4e57-ab1c-3e967bcbad48.microsoft.com
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 30 Aug 2013 17:10:52 -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 Informational (if approved) RFC is a cleanup update and refresh of RFC 3316, which discusses how to implement IPv6 on 3GPP Cellular hosts. It incorporates several RFCs that have come out since RFC 3316 along with other clarifications. There is a substantial Security Considerations section dealing with security considerations for dealing with a cellular environment, but this document mostly references other RFCs and does not introduce any security issues of its own.

Minor (non-security) issues:

This document does not use the MUST and SHOULD conventions of most RFCs. I've long believed these were inappropriate for Informational RFCs, but this is the first time I've seen anyone agree with me and remove them.

There are many places where referenced RFCs are not placed in brackets (e.g. "RFC 5095" instead of [RFC5095].

I found 2 typos:
Page 5: "build-in" -> "built-in"
Page 17: "causes no hard" -> "causes no harm"

                --Charlie