Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11-secdir-lc-harkins-2015-03-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-03-10
Requested 2015-03-02
Draft last updated 2015-03-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Harkins
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11-secdir-lc-harkins-2015-03-19
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-03-19

Review
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11-secdir-lc-harkins-2015-03-19

  First of all, sorry for the tardiness of this review?.

  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 draft provides quite a few updates to RFC 3315 to deal with
an issue that was not anticipated when that RFC was developed:
additional stateful DHCPv6 options. The problematic option that
has been added is for DHCPv6 prefix delegation (IA_PD) and some
interop issues have been observed when the non-temporary
addresses option (IA_NA) and the prefix delegation option are used
together. The draft specifies new normative behavior to address
coexistence problems with IA_NA and IA_PD.

  I believe the draft is "Ready with nits". Actually ready with nit and
that nit is that the Security Considerations should point back to
RFC 3315 (which has nice Security Considerations). Currently it
only says, "There are no new security considerations pertaining to
this document." and it might be a good idea to say something more
like "This document adds no new security considerations to those
described in [RFC 3315]." or something like that.

  regards,

  Dan.