Thanks Scott. If we're asked to make any revisions, we'll certainly look
again at that sentence. I think we were thinking about validation of address
ownership (or more precisely, prefix ownership).
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 04-Apr-25 09:33, Scott Kelly via Datatracker wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign
Title: Clarification of IPv6 Address Assignment Policy
Reviewer: Scott Kelly
Review result: Ready
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.
The summary of the review is ready (maybe with a minor issue).
From the abstract, this document specifies the approval process for changes to
the IPv6 Address Space registry. It also updates RFC 7249.
The security considerations section says only this:
"Carefully reviewed address allocation mechanisms are necessary for any form of
address-based security."
I don't disagree with this, but I had 2 reactions: first, I expected this
section to either state that this doc adds no new considerations over those in
the doc(s) it updates (e.g. RFC 7249), or to state any new considerations.
Second, the phrase "address-based security" gave me pause. We don't recommend
basing security on unauthenticated addresses, do we? I wonder if it would be
better not to risk leaving the reader with the wrong impression.
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
