[dir-coord] Requesting SECDIR review of draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security
"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 07:48 UTC
Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A74C1AC3DD for <dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:48:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.776
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.776 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BODY_URI_ONLY=0.25, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zGABpLjUdFN1 for <dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:48:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658BD1A1F78 for <dir-coord@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:48:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1291; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385020111; x=1386229711; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Z+ciA6ov4/KAmW+tP6Mqe+ZH3WXNOK+8zXC/EtYQMH0=; b=nAa+kmgZk5ASSBOOrB9WVeLc2hpCMfdGTy7QARHdPE5+GZ/8pNmVSJ8x HwVBblL2KljeExndWnKa3JoZp/jsmCz1LlzX4ZnJD4gMvO7B9cfQIMfK8 xGEmSyupvUA7h93qMTuojkKCEBu9Uon4U4brAfyAzIzMvP6txlfXJcjOG A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvUFAAm6jVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC71ygR0WbQeCLGUUEgGBACcEDhMNh2bAcBePa4MngRIDkDCBMYYxkhCDKIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,742,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="286555585"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2013 07:48:30 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAL7mUMT014111 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:30 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.136]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 01:48:30 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "dir-coord@ietf.org" <dir-coord@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Requesting SECDIR review of draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security
Thread-Index: AQHO5o4Rt2HUtsre+E+xEICIlT05Ow==
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:29 +0000
Message-ID: <16F5011B-A87C-4BE3-8AA4-F47C13E830F6@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.121]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C74EAE95-D5CB-4DEE-8AFC-F7647EE7B1B7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, John Brzozowski <John_Brzozowski@Cable.Comcast.com>
Subject: [dir-coord] Requesting SECDIR review of draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security
X-BeenThere: dir-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is an e-mail alias for the organisers of IETF directorates." <dir-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dir-coord>, <mailto:dir-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dir-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:dir-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dir-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dir-coord>, <mailto:dir-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:48:39 -0000
This document is right now in WGLC. Some points have been raised, which I imagine will warrant a revision. However, there are a lot of claims being made in and about the draft to the effect that it is a security solution that Swisscom has deployed and sees no problems with, and therefore the IETF should bless it as a general firewall solution. I would appreciate a timely review from the Security Directorate that would help us know whether it is likely to pass muster with the IESG, and if not, what types problems the directorate sees and what types of solutions would be acceptable.
- [dir-coord] Requesting SECDIR review of draft-iet… Fred Baker (fred)
- [dir-coord] Requesting SECDIR review of draft-iet… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dir-coord] Requesting SECDIR review of draft… Fred Baker (fred)