Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-02

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:47:07 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

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.

Overall, the document is very straightforward and the Security 
Considerations section is appropriate for the content.

I do have one nit to pass along.  I think that a paragraph break is in the 
wrong place in the Introduction.

Current in Introduction:
(end of first paragraph)
    manner which is efficient, scalable and straightforward to implement.
    For IPv4, some networks configure RTBH installations using [RFC1918]
    address space or the address blocks reserved for documentation in
    [RFC5737].

    However RTBH configurations are not documentation, but operationally
    important features of many public-facing production networks.
    Furthermore, [RFC3849] specifies that the IPv6 documentation prefix
    should be filtered in both local and public contexts.  On this basis,
    it is suggested that both private network address blocks and
    documentation prefixes described in [RFC5737] are inappropriate for
    the purpose of RTBH configurations.

Suggested:
    manner which is efficient, scalable and straightforward to implement.

    For IPv4, some networks configure RTBH installations using [RFC1918]
    address space or the address blocks reserved for documentation in
    [RFC5737].  However RTBH configurations are not documentation, but
    operationally important features of many public-facing production
    networks.  Furthermore, [RFC3849] specifies that the IPv6 documentation
    prefix should be filtered in both local and public contexts.  On this
    basis, it is suggested that both private network address blocks and
    documentation prefixes described in [RFC5737] are inappropriate for
    the purpose of RTBH configurations.

Regards,
Chris

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:14:49 -0800

Not a big fan of the use of "however" I think  this can be addressed at
minimum by auth48.

On 1/20/12 10:47 , Chris Lonvick wrote:
> I do have one nit to pass along.  I think that a paragraph break is in
> the wrong place in the Introduction.
> 
> Current in Introduction:
> (end of first paragraph)