Re: [v6ops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-04: (with COMMENT)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Roman,

On 20/10/20 19:07, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi Fernando!
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:58 PM
>> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; v6ops-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-04:
>> (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Hello, Roman,
>>
>> Thanks so much for your comments! In-line...
>>
>> On 20/10/20 18:32, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks to Klaas Wiereng for the SECDIR review.
>>>
>>> ** Section 6.  As Section 3.2 is proposing tuning the parameters in
>>> RFC4861, it is likely worth reiterating that these security
>>> considerations still apply
>>
>> Not sure what you mean. The security considerations in RFC4861, or something
>> else?
> 
> Yes, and this is minor, I meant to restate the obvious that RFC4861 applies (instead of a bare statement that no new security).

Would you consider your comment addresses if we tweak the Security 
Considerations text as:

    This document discusses a problem that may arise in scenarios where
    flash-renumbering events occur, and proposes workarounds to mitigate
    the aforementioned problems.  This document does not introduce any
    new security issues, and thus the same security considerations as
    for [RFC4861] apply.

?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492