Document:  draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-04.txt
Reviewer: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>
Review Date:  Wednesday 6/7/2006 10:28 AM CST
IESG Telechat Date:  Thursday, 08 June 2006

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has 
nits that should be fixed before publication.

I've completed my review and only managed to find a few more minor nits:

7. In section 2.4, it seems there are two typos: accpetable and
mecahnism .

8. In section 3.3, the term SOHO is used but not explained. I'm guessing
it Small Office/Home Office after a bit of googling.

9. In appendix B, first paragraph it says "The generation of IPv6
addresses of IPv6 addresses from MAC addresses" while I imagine it
should read "The generation of IPv6 addresses from MAC addresses

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review Date:  Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:55:19 AM  CST
IESG Telechat Date:  Thursday, 25 May 2006

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has 
nits that should be fixed before publication.

Comments:

I somehow wasn't paying attention and only realized at the last minute
that I was assigned this review for today's meeting. Apologies for the
lateness and incompleteness of this review. I only managed to review to
the end of section 2.3.

1. In section 1, second paragraph, it says "It is important to
understand that we have to be concerned not about replacing IPv4 with
IPv6", which seems a bit bold of a statement without a clarification
like "in the near future" or some form of explanation.

2. In section 2.1.1, second paragraph and after the bullets, there is a
typo - "point wher it is being "

3. The document contains a number of references to internet drafts that
originally defined the problems discussed. The document claims "Several
of these issues have been discussed in separate drafts but are
summarized here to avoid normative references that may not become RFCs",
but it isn't clear what the RFC editor should do. Should it delete all
these references or just delete the ones that are not RFCs at the time
of publication, or should it evaluate which it thinks will someday
become RFCs and then wait for them?

4. Section 2.1.9. 1 does not make a recommendation. Are we suggesting
that middleware boxes should inspect these packets or just letting
people know about the conflict. A recommendation of some sort would seem
more satisfying.

5. In section 2.1.9.2, third paragraph says that "This either limits the
security that can be applied in firewalls or makes it difficult to
deploy new extension header types", but I did not find information in
this section to support that conclusion. It may well be true, but it
isn't supported. Why is it difficult to skip over header extensions I
don't recognize, for example?

6. In section 2.3.2, second paragraph, second bullet, isn't it mandatory
to implement ipsec in IPv6 but it isn't mandatory to deploy it is it?
I'm not sure this distinction is clear in this bullet. (Assuming my
understanding is correct that is)