Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-6man-overlap-fragment-03.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:33:04 +0100

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. 

Document: draft-ietf-6man-overlap-fragment-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2009-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2009-11-02
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Personal comment as a IPv6 implementor: overlapping fragments have no
utility in IPv6 so I never added code to support them. BTW the specs
just didn't disallow them (at explained in the introduction but not
in the Abstract) and most implementors didn't care. Some lazy copied
the IPv4 code and removed the overlap support to get something simpler,
some are so lazy they kept everything... But to explicitely disallow
them is the right idea.
BTW I remember an old paper about BRO (before the IDSs :-) where a
fragmentation/segmentation overlap was found bad, so it is not new
(i.e., it is older than IPv6...).

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - Abstract page 1: allows -> does not disallow??

 - Toc page 2: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 2 page 3: the term 'check' is not enough because it is for protection,
  something like 'security check' should be better (but a bit too strong).

 - 3 page 5: it is possible to get bad overlapping fragments from
  an error too (i.e., it is not always an attack, of course the action
  should be to drop the whole packet anyway).

 - 4 page 6: received), MUST -> received) MUST?

 - 6 page 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

Thanks

[email-masked]