Hi Shivan,
Thanks for your review and comments.
I just posted a -03 version that incorporates your suggested edits and attempts to address your comments.
Regarding the Security Considerations, I added some text that refers to draft-ietf-snac-simple. I think we should keep the text in one place and having it in draft-ietf-snac-simple makes more sense to me.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03.html
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03
Looking forward to your feedback.
Thanks!
--
Jonathan Hui
I just posted a -03 version that incorporates your suggested edits and attempts to address your comments.
Regarding the Security Considerations, I added some text that refers to draft-ietf-snac-simple. I think we should keep the text in one place and having it in draft-ietf-snac-simple makes more sense to me.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03.html
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03
Looking forward to your feedback.
Thanks!
--
Jonathan Hui
On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 6:23 PM Shivan Sahib via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Shivan Sahib
Review result: Has Issues
The document generally looks straight-forward. However, it's surprising to me
that the Security Considerations section completely defers to RFC 4861. For
example, surely a device lying about being a SNAC router would have some added
implications for DoS capabilities like mentioned in Security Considerations
section of RFC 4861 and RFC 3756? I think it would be worth spelling out what
happens in that scenario.
Nit: In the introduction, "Stub Network Auto-Configuring Router (SNAC) router"
says router twice, can just remove the first "Router".
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
