IPv6 updates & related RA-Guard document

RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com> Tue, 25 September 2012 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rja.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BF11F042A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UqyzBInUfAK4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FBF1F0C7F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so6239596qca.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=oPVDRNhCTkM2uzg6X8vNjJubqmj7nQooLQr6S2xclMY=; b=wVsnWNMWMWuK6fuYjcyqQsv+lFYicxVuOqugL4K7Tx/EObbXysDgzCvmIoTwhIHNdA 912FfS5oWCPbVpe7zhxA3b2/VbkjdpOv/aWVEBvcZwq14k1qmMXmIoBuVl3agjuRFAVx bJbBkhKYbB5OcdNqwRI08fBxKQ1vEhbkcrGzKmSlo8CMybDK/WV6X/MsWxT+wGXQZ9Y7 oZGdAeD0yRglwlvgfaXux3xmfGTiN+330YjAmW9xhM6fMkZo31zP9zufFL9U9oSkx8Gk EEMroZw0Tz6Fks5w5dm4FJtjNK++pbLHaPRUMl25AD4GNObtrJsxa+KS9H6Pb9XKpPXs pLVg==
Received: by 10.224.184.133 with SMTP id ck5mr40338375qab.42.1348585292873; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.20.13] (pool-74-110-100-136.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [74.110.100.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fy1sm1041214qab.10.2012.09.25.08.01.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: IPv6 updates & related RA-Guard document
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:01:30 -0400
Message-Id: <09ABA7A7-8FDE-43AA-B2E6-C4C501995C53@gmail.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:01:34 -0000

Hi,

Work on the RA-Guard specification in another IETF WG
drove the creation of two I-Ds currently in this WG:
	- draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers
	- draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain

The RA Guard work in the other IETF WG is currently
*blocked* pending the 6MAN WG approving the 2 I-Ds above.

In turn, the RA Guard work is a high priority for all kinds
of network operators (i.e. not just ISPs), because it provides 
practical risk reduction and risk mitigation for a real-world 
operational security issue.

RA Guard implementers can't really move forward until the
RA Guard I-D is approved by the other WG -- which I believe
is at present blocked on the 2 I-Ds at top being approved 
by the 6MAN WG.

My understanding is that the technical content in these
2 IPv6 Spec update I-Ds has been presented more than once.  

Further, the drafts have been around long enough that active
6MAN WG participants already should have read them.

I am a bit confused about where we stand with these today,
so I have two questions:

- Where does the 6MAN WG stand with these two drafts ?

- How can we move them forward (soon -- i.e. BEFORE the 
  next IETF in-person meeting), so that the other active 
  IETF work (i.e. RA-Guard) can be unblocked ?

- Can these go into WG Last Call now ?

Thanks,

Ran