[secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Thu, 19 January 2017 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.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 A8784129463 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:06:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 ggtsgZrXb3LH for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:06:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65FA01293F2 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:06:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id t8so31992822vke.3 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:06:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WJzzFd5n09mWwgYnyravvNYI7KKQRNQTtq+Kdgx6bPs=; b=U/TTSpVrSGX/cZldUFoUJLr7r6Oh5ArTTn+lnyB2itfkizO6zIEpkZLkWmfOEJ+XHz Tabon5evnYzPjzoHGuiAORSipaAw/tbKpw+4dtylqx8qJSyWRpS8j9BUvgIGxmqzMaHK RaXL2rb+Q9KCX0WzzvEjfDIvA6HiOT2jr4HRTPzlXzYoHlhFY9njzfv/N0rPzo+yE1S3 ETMeyel7nfCn09KbIxKcl1LBBvWwmkbPVf3p5G266BMKLds3rBsEi87juWzCDtPWHDmv cTLngUSS1JBBq5r68xOfi3O760pVA/z6CQDcwAqwzaAUywmkY64PkxHkCWjcE1Pj8JlZ 5/UA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WJzzFd5n09mWwgYnyravvNYI7KKQRNQTtq+Kdgx6bPs=; b=Ea/A7FUx4zhU7izvUyu1peBcZyFL9evp8ZG+zXmyTQji7+FFrCghZWaswQlQkrvynR iF0jbaxEzzoAxevbg6s5aYn2X2URuiWqwoCccG4ki43nXdQnNotO/uHlZMYSBtmhtLb6 Q+fh8gvni0GxxEuItg6Q9kID3RRGIErJ6KBHYoCXxdtMfvRbtfLakok6Fbi8szXuv4ap jlcK5jrfcPwZiNCdvZksjVIyRcu6S+nEzT7pQnFun5lFFBwvb9jiqsFRnqYpAofI651T jb2gEi3xrHwkUX/L2gKADYJuhRUxUfwD/D9ZGBv7lgPOuRXfpNtLVRqlnPvWzzpmBKuZ YFZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKquiGyM58rlQjWqvEWnui5x9vYxb1Ew6wgfbmXq6j4NYGzKVgc7SxTb+d110PnfqD2TfnPj8Bu365g2viY
X-Received: by 10.31.10.213 with SMTP id 204mr4713947vkk.5.1484838369406; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:06:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.130.199 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:06:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:06:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CABrd9SR8jMFmRaefy1RguzmOBefpe7Jek6cFp7O_avTxcs1E=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/vh2iooH8Ol4psMPGhivm5RqI1XI>
Subject: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:06:12 -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.

Status: ready.

Since this I-D is about benchmarking an unmodified device in an
isolated network, it seems it doesn't introduce any security
considerations of its own.