Subject: [6lo] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12

From: Adam Montville via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 08:04:53 -0800

Reviewer: Adam Montville
Review result: Ready

Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and Lossy Networks, which
guards against address theft, is almost ready for publication.

There are two points that may warrant attention by the ADs:

1. In the first exchange with a 6LR: "When a 6LR receives a NS(EARO)
registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR, it SHOULD challenge by responding
with a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Requested"". Under what
circumstances would a challenge not be warranted? In other words, could this
SHOULD be a MUST?

2. The following sentence in 7.1 reads, "The 6LR must protect itself against
overflows and reject excessive registration with a status 2 "Neighbor Cache
Full"". Does that need to be a MUST instead of a must?

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:26:28 +0000

Hello Adam

Many thanks for your review 😊 

Please see below:

> registration with a new Crypto-ID as a ROVR, it SHOULD challenge by
> responding with a NA(EARO) with a status of "Validation Requested"". Under
> what circumstances would a challenge not be warranted? In other words, could
> this SHOULD be a MUST?

Yes I guess it is a MUST, unless the registration is rejected for another reason, e.g., the overflow below.
Unless someone posts against it I'll make the change with the next revision.

> Full"". Does that need to be a MUST instead of a must?

Yes, I suppose so. I'll make that change too.

Many thanks again Adam!

Pascal