Diffs for draft nits attached.
On 3/23/21, 10:19 AM, "rtg-dir on behalf of Acee Lindem via Datatracker" <rtg-dir-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review result: Has Nits
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Early Review/Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to
resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24.txt
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: 03/23/2021
IETF LC End Date: Soon
Intended Status: Informational
Summary: The document contains a lot of useful recommendations and
references for Operational Security in IPv6 networks. Since
the document has "Informational" status, none of the text is
normative.
The document is basically ready for publication. I have some
nits attached and a have couple suggested references for
IPv6 control plane security.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues:
1. Section 2.4 - Recommend implementation of key-chains and graceful
key rollover as documented in section 2.2 of RFC 8177. This will
avoid the disruptions during key rollover.
2. Section 2.4 - Recommend implementation of SPF rate-limiting as
documented in RFC 8541. This is in the context of OSPFv3 protocol
specific mechanisms and the recommended rate-limiting.
Nits: Will send diffs in separate message.
<<< text/html; name="Diff_ draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24.txt.orig - draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
