Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review result: Has Issues 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: the document compares the SRv6 SIDs and the IPv6 addresses. It would be very helpful to add the following explanation to the Security Consideration section: - From the Security perspective, is it beneficial to have some mechanism to detect Man-in-the-middle that tamper with the SIDs list in the SRH? Can you add some explanation for the following in Section 3? -There are lots of studies showing that IPv6 packets with Extension Headers tend to be dropped in the network. Does it happen to IPv6 packets with SRH? - If IPv6 addresses not compliant with the requirements set forth in RFC4291 get forwarded without error, why do we need the requirements of RFC4291? Thank you very much, Linda Dunbar -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
