Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02
review-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02-secdir-lc-roca-2015-02-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-02-04
Requested 2015-01-22
Authors Kamran Raza, Nobo Akiya, Carlos Pignataro
Draft last updated 2015-02-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Brian Carpenter
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02-secdir-lc-roca-2015-02-05
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-02-05

Review
review-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02-secdir-lc-roca-2015-02-05

Hello,

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.

Summary: ready

This document specifies a new Router Alert Option Value for IPv6, to be used
by MPLS OAM tools in IPv6 environments.
It does not introduce any new mechanism that is likely to create security
threats. Additionally, RFC 6398 discusses the security aspects of IP Router
Alert in detail. The Security Considerations section of the present document
refers to this (and related RFCs) for security aspects which I think is appropriate.


Non-Security comments:

** The Introduction uses several terms that appear to me synonymous, namely:
       generic Option Value
       generic IPV6 Router Alert code point
       Value field in the Router Alert Option
       IPv6 Router Alert Option Value
And later in Section 3:
       option value            (i.e., without any upper case letter)
Or in Section 6:
       defines a new code point (value TBD1)
It's worth to harmonize them.

** Section 5: there's probably a missing word in:
       "...examine the packet the MPLS OAM purpose."