Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header

[David Culler <[e-mail]>]

Chris,
   Thanks very much.  It should be natural to address these comments.

D.




On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Chris Lonvick wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 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.
> 
> I havn't seen source routing in a long time so I had to wrap my head around that again.  I tried working through some examples on how this would work for verious network conditions, but gave up before my head started hurting.  :)
> 
> Overall, it looks like the security concerns are addressed in the document.
> 
> I do have some minor nits that the authors may wish to discuss.
> 
> 1. I don't think that the following sentence in Section 6.1 is needed:
>   "Furthermore, it is RECOMMENDED that non-RPL
>   routers and firewalls drop packets with a SRH by default."
> That is already discussed in RFC 5095.  Having it here is therefore redundant.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure that I am correctly following all of your pseudocode in Section 4.2.  In most places it looks like separate instructions within curly braces are separated by blank lines.  From that, I'm not sure of what is meant by a semicolon in the following:
>       else {
>          decrement Segments Left by 1;
>          compute i, the index of the next address to be visited in
>          the address vector, by subtracting Segments Left from n
> 
>          if Address[i] or the IPv6 Destination Address is multicast {
>             discard the packet
>          }
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Chris