Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01

<nohat>

let me offer a contrarian view.
I don't think we should publish this document. why? because I don't think it is worth the effort required by the community. I think we've pushed the needle too far in publishing 'micro updates'.

RFC2460 does not have normative language in how the Identification value should be generated. therefore I see no need to update RFC2460.

I think the advice may be useful, I'd be happy to see it in an RFC2460 update, or an update to the IPv6 Node requirement document. or more generally you could see a document in intarea titled "IP protocol fields must not be predictable.".

in any case I don't think publishing this particular document as an RFC is good use of our time.

</nohat>

cheers,
Ole

> On 04 Dec 2014, at 9:07 , Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
> 
>     Title           : Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification Values
>     Authors     : Fernando Gont
>     Filename   : draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01.txt
>     Pages        : 16
>     Date           : 2014-04-30
> 
>      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01
> 
> as a Best Current Practice Document.  Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will end on December 18, 2014.
> 
> Note: While the document has expired, we didn't consider it necessary to refresh it purely for the sake of initiating the working group last call.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bob Hinden & Ole Trøan
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------