IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03.txt> (Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks) to Informational RFC

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 13 April 2013 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1FC821F8EBE; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0lIYa9o7-Y3C; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE9921F8E47; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 26-174-16-190.fibertel.com.ar ([190.16.174.26] helo=[192.168.1.113]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1UQrAN-0008Cz-Gt; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:30:15 +0200
Message-ID: <5168D137.4090305@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:29:59 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03.txt> (Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks) to Informational RFC
References: <20130329130326.13012.1402.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51559943.1010703@gmail.com> <515985E1.1000404@si6networks.com> <515AA8B4.5020707@gmail.com> <5164F5F3.9030007@si6networks.com> <51658DFC.7010504@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51658DFC.7010504@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: opsec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:30:22 -0000

Hi, Brian,

On 04/10/2013 01:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> For simplicity sake (and because I'm not sure how one would tone that
>> one down), my suggestion would be to apply you proposed text, modulo
>> that sentence.
>>
>> Would that be okay with you? -- If not, please do let me know, so that
>> we can try to find a way forward that keeps everyone happy.
> 
> Well, it's not for me to call the consenus, but with that sentence
> removed I would personally enter the "no objection" state.

Good.

BTW, it's unclear to me whether I should keep in in the acks or not...
so please do let me know how you'd like me to proceed in this respect.


P.S.: For any other future reviews: I usually do my best to address
others' comments. In the event that you submit feedback, and it looks
like I have not tried to address it, please resend/ping me (most likely
I tried but failed, the feedback slipped by, or whatever... )

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email