Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 27 Dec 2010

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:36:08 -0600

Hi all,

Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101227-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,
Mary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:43:14 -0500

I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01.txt
     Routing Loop Attack using IPv6 Automatic Tunnels:
         Problem Statement and Proposed Mitigations
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 28-Dec-2010
IETF LC End Date: 29-Dec-2010
IESG Telechat date: 06-Jan-2011)

Summary: Nearly ready for publication as an Informational RFC

Major issues: It is unclear in the document what assumptions section 3.1 
makes about the relationship between supported tunnels and checked 
embedded addresses.  Is there an assumption that the router only has to 
check for addresses in the format and prefix it supports?  I hope so. 
Otherwise, a router seems to be expected to look at an arbitrary IPv6 
addresses, guess whether it has an embedded IPv4 addresses, and perform 
filter checks on that guessed addresses against its own addresses.
If indeed their is a relationship, then it would really help if section 
3.1 said that.
Unfortunately, I am afraid no such relationship is assumed.  If not, I 
would like to see significantly better explanation of how the router is 
to reliably know that there is a 6rd or ISATAP address embedded in the 
v6 address.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: