Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Has Nits

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.

Summary: This document defines an experimental IPv6 Destination Option for use with non-MPLS VPNs. While this option specification doesn’t give a whole lot of detail on the operational use of the option, it does give security considerations that seem reasonable if not highly specified.  

The summary of the review is Has Nits.


Major issues: None


Minor issues:


Page 3, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: I’m not entirely sure what is meant by this sentence. Is it trying to say, “Another purpose is to demonstrate that the security considerations are sufficient to protect use of the VPN Service Option”? I’m not sure how either that objective or my reading of the one in the document is demonstrated. Security considerations are something that stand a test of time, but I’m not sure one can ever be fully certain that they are sufficient.

Page 4, section 3, 3rd bullet item, 2nd sub-bullet item: does anything more need to be said about these 20 bits are used to identify and differentiate interfaces from each other or is that not germane to the experiment?

Page 8, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: Is 2^12 really highly unlikely? In cryptographic algorithm contexts, it likely wouldn’t be. I have no basis to judge whether two experiments running simultaneously might collide, so I’m just raising the question.

Nits:


Page 4, section 3, 3rd bullet item: change “32-bits” to “32 bits”.

Page 4, section 3, 3rd bullet item, 1st sub-bullet: change “12 bit” to “12-bit”.

Page 4, section 3, 1st paragraph after the bullet list, 3rd sentence: delete the duplicated “appears in”.

Page 4, section 3, 2nd paragraph after the bullet list: delete the space between “NOTE” and “:”.

Page 5, section 4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: insert “the” before “customer”.

Page 7, section 7, 2nd bullet list, 1st bullet item: change “option” to “Option”.

Page 7, section 7, 1st paragraph after 2nd bullet list, 2nd sentence: change “fo” to “of”.

Page 7, section 7, 2nd paragraph after 2nd bullet list, 1st sentence: consider inserting “capable of” before the first occurrence of “modifying”.

Page 8, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “imediment” to “impediment”. Change “deplyment” to “deployment”.

Page 8, section 9, 5th bullet item, 1st sub-bullet item: change “inter-operable” to “interoperable”. If you can use “interoperability” in the following sentence, I don’t see why the adjective needs to be hyphenated in the first.