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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,

On 10/04/2013 06:17, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Brian,
> 
> My apologies for the delay in my response. Please find my comments
> in-line...
> 
> 
> On 04/02/2013 06:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Fernando,
>>
>> Rather than repeating myself, I'll suggest a change to the Introduction
>> that would (IMHO) improve the message:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>> 1.  Introduction
>>
>>    Most general-purpose operating systems implement and enable native
>>    IPv6 [RFC2460] support and a number of transition/co-existence
>>    technologies by default.  For cases in which the corresponding
>>    devices are deployed on networks that are assumed to be IPv4-only,
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> 1.  Introduction
>>
>>    Most general-purpose operating systems implement and enable native
>>    IPv6 [RFC2460] support and a number of transition/co-existence
>>    technologies by default [RFC6434]. Support of IPv6 by all nodes is
>>    intended to become best current practice [RFC6540]. As a result,
>>    networks will need to plan for and deploy IPv6 and its security
>>    mechanisms. Some enterprise networks might, however, choose to delay
>>    active use of IPv6. For networks that are assumed to be IPv4-only,
> 
> I've checked with a few folks, and it seems that the suggested text
> would make everyone happy, except for the sentence that says "As a
> result, networks will need to plan for and deploy IPv6 and its security
> mechanisms.", on the basis that this is not the document to make a case
> for v6 deployment. The suggestions has been to remove that sentence, and
> apply the rest of your proposed text (or, alternatively, to tone down
> that sentence).
> 
> 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.

Thanks

    Brian