Last Call Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-secdir-lc-kaufman-2013-05-23-00

Request Review of draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-06-04
Requested 2013-05-16
Authors Donald Eastlake, Joe Abley
Draft last updated 2013-05-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by David Black (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by David Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Charlie Kaufman
State Completed
Review review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-secdir-lc-kaufman-2013-05-23
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-05-23

Review
review-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02-secdir-lc-kaufman-2013-05-23






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 document is a minor update to rfc5342bis, which discusses IANA considerations for the assignment of code points below the IANA OUI delegated to the IETF by IEEE 802. This document decouples the assignment of unicast and multicast addresses,
 which should lead to a more efficient allocation given that few protocols need both. It also allocates some code points for use in documentation as examples.




 




There really are no security considerations associated with this document. The author points out as a security consideration that allocation of code points for use in documentation may reduce confusion and conflict if people erroneously
 copy code points literally from documentation rather than substituting their own assigned values, and such confusion could have resulted in security issues.




 




I found no typos or other errors other than there may be a formatting glitch on the first page of the .pdf version, where my printer put the page 1 trailer line on a page by itself.




 




                --Charlie