Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An, etc.

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 23 June 2014 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEA31B2B1D for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 tFziO89x6UaF for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22b.google.com (mail-ve0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FFDF1A038D for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id jz11so6501704veb.2 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=++ZIJkGwT8P6JPBPHChJH2jIT7EEVOZxrrFWVgCrsIU=; b=xAfuYKwBEMR6semKL6pgbhOm/7MApsz7A9LIrcrp+FBcdCCs5zZfiv3EUeoRgZnDvR iCGhBkLheAzi+q8DxSufxNcpaz4rXxKl75pNiNUA5GO4Jo3oJ5w7auYHl8alQuXuRz3c NumviidpELH7FhjATCvsFkpdItSqke7Iq0ircdv6gMXiNJg84JWhHR6DDxfXKwPKF78h R9SlxEdS0lO4ldo7UJEU7pHhg2AwBFc1SNr3RU7kX/IKASDqzxZZcXFhN4E8EHsWIJ51 2AG9RnrlYchWBSBEZNTuQ5KuBk0iiZX4f36g7EiSQl7PVVQS2D+0MTDHoPjgRuF0uxL2 YLjA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.221.64.20 with SMTP id xg20mr21094674vcb.3.1403553243246; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.117.9 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140623111840.0bbb9c08@elandnews.com>
References: <0B09A467-1447-4D61-804D-9DD581A89275@nominum.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140623103438.0c2c1490@elandnews.com> <20140528160426.31345.98483.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140607073853.0b975758@resistor.net> <CAE_dhju4kfj=YXjJN-rMXDNd-zLy4zLawf_2jcBh26CiFSJ99A@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140623102349.0c2c19b0@elandnews.com> <7826FE0A-C388-466A-94B9-1228973AFE9B@nominum.com> <CAE_dhjseo_fMUVEttPj+6TGtJr4yz+QhhgH=sjB02KtdUVDbeQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140623111840.0bbb9c08@elandnews.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:54:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjvWTWkqHkvUx+pw+pKn5G1DH3KCM5P=-FPev_fXDMAMBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/4lBF7ET7HiyEwXgSvmCchu0Yexw
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, Francis Dupont <fdupont@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An, etc.
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:54:05 -0000

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
>
> At 10:45 23-06-2014, Julien Laganier wrote:
>>
>> How about this:
>>
>> "Router software MUST NOT include any special handling code for
>> ORCHIDs.  In other words, the non-routability property of ORCHIDs, if
>> implemented, is to be implemented via configuration rather than by
>> hardwired software code.  At this time, it is RECOMMENDED that the
>> default router configuration not handle ORCHIDs in any special way.
>> In other words, there is no need to touch existing or new routers due
>> to ORCHIDs.  If such a reason should later appear, for example, due
>> to a faulty implementation leaking ORCHIDs to the IP layer, the
>> prefix can be and should be blocked by a simple configuration rule such
>> as,
>> e.g., an Access Control List entry."
>
>
> The first two sentences look fine.  I suggest trying to look at the
> "recommendation" part as something after the document is published.  I am
> not thinking clearly enough to suggest text. :-(  I would avoid the "should"
> in the last sentence.

How about this then:

"Router software MUST NOT include any special handling code for
 ORCHIDs.  In other words, the non-routability property of ORCHIDs, if
 implemented, is to be implemented via configuration rather than by
 hardwired software code, e.g., the ORCHID prefix can be blocked by
 a simple configuration rule such as an Access Control List entry."

Please let me know if this is Ok so that I can publish an update
carrying agreed upon changes.

--julien