Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-06.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:42:27 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

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

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-06.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 12-July-2010
IETF LC End Date: 12-July-2010
IESG Telechat date: 15-July-2010

Summary: The document is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- The Abstract contains a couple of references. Abstracts should be 
self-contained, so they shouldn't contain references

- The Abstract is way too long, and contains an introduction (so, it is 
no longer an Abstract). I will remove the first two paragraphs from the 
current Abstract, and use the third one to build a new one. A good 
paragraph for the Abstract is the last paragraph of Section 2 as well.

- General to the whole document: s/SeND/SEND

- Second last paragraph in Section 2. I would add an informative 
reference to the X.509 specification.

- The Security Considerations are a bit light, IMHO. Perhaps you should 
say that the security considerations of RFC 3971 apply (I don't know if 
this is true or not, I am just giving an example). I also miss some text 
saying that the L2 switch and the routers need to check certificates 
(here you can add a reference to X.509). Well, the process of checking 
certificates is written elsewhere, but not in this section, somehow I 
miss it here.

In essence, anything that helps a router to prevent accepting a wrong RA 
should be described here.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain