Re: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-14: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hiya Stephen,

On 3/5/15 10:12 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-14: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bit confused here - you use a field from SEND, and
> then say that that could be borked, so the mitigation is
> that one might use SEND to protect that. Why not just use
> SEND - can you explain?
> 

This approach is just using the nonce option to identify the packet when
it is looped back to the sending system.  This can be applied to systems
and/or networks that either can't or won't deploy the entire SEND
infrastructure.

Regards,
Brian