[v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-04
Christopher Wood via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 09 September 2020 23:16 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423333A043A; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 16:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Christopher Wood via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.16.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <159969337123.15697.6820068156665930267@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 16:16:11 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hEfxt3t4Cz7S-LHw159Y35AOk8s>
Subject: [v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-04
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 23:16:12 -0000
Reviewer: Christopher Wood Review result: Has Nits Summary: Has Nits Comments: - Section 3: is it possible for an attacker to send DHCPv6 Prefix Delegations with lifetime=0 to CE routers that support LAN-side DHCPv6 and amplify Reconfigure messages to supporting clients? (I don't know if this is a concern or part of the threat model, but this did seem to be a case of possible request/response asymmetry.) - Section 4: rationale for these default values, if available, might be worth including. (Why not make them shorter? What are the tradeoffs?) - Section 6: it might be worth noting what happens if stable storage is unavailable or otherwise compromised when trying to store prefix information. What happens if the "A" or "L" bits are modified? (I suspect nothing dangerous, but it's not clear to me whether or not integrity is important.) Nits: - In some places "\"Valid Lifetime\"" is written as "valid-lifetime" -- should these be made consistent?
- [v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6o… Christopher Wood via Datatracker
- Re: [v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Uri Blumenthal
- Re: [v6ops] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Christopher Wood
- Re: [v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Christopher Wood
- Re: [v6ops] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Warren Kumari
- Re: [v6ops] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Owen DeLong