FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
john.loughney@nokia.com Tue, 23 December 2003 10:27 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14895 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:27:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjkf-0001Bm-VH for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:58 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNAQvHV004566 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:57 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjkf-0001BZ-RA for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14876 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjkc-00076A-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:54 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjiP-00072z-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:24:37 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjiP-00072w-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:24:37 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjgr-0000x5-LT; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:23:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjgk-0000wV-4V for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:22:54 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14663 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:22:50 -0500 (EST)
From: john.loughney@nokia.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjgg-0006wj-01 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:22:50 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjeZ-0006vU-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:20:41 -0500
Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com ([131.228.20.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjeZ-0006vK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:20:39 -0500
Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hBNAKdU25089 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:39 +0200 (EET)
Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id <T66af705857ac158f24077@esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com> for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:39 +0200
Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:38 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:37 +0200
Message-ID: <DADF50F5EC506B41A0F375ABEB320636D44BA5@esebe023.ntc.nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt
Thread-Index: AcPIFsgHRsoednRPRbGbhM7mCEW/ygADw9xQAEYCpDA=
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 10:20:38.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[6907A590:01C3C93E]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all, The node requirements draft was reviewed by the IESG. Here are the main points raised, arranged by reviewer. The big issue I see is about upgrading IKE to a SHOULD. I'll try to start addressing the points after Christmas, but feel free to discuss it already. Set 1: > I'm astonished that Path MTU is a MAY -- I had thought it was > a MUST. I'd really like some more text explaining what some > of the many exceptions are that are alluded to here. > > For Section 8, RFCs 2401, 2402, and 2406 are currently being > revised by the IPsec group; that should be mentioned. > > The crypto algorithm requirements should be better aligned > with recommendations from the IPsec wg. There's a draft that > lists 3DES as SHOULD, not MAY. > > I think that IKEv? should be a SHOULD, not a MAY. While the > IESG hasn't yet seen draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt, it will > soon and it describes automated key management as a "strong > SHOULD". That's certainly the consensus in the security area. > > More generically, I don't think that this WG should > standardize weaker security requirements than the security > area thinks are appropriate, without strong justification. > (Stronger requirements are fine -- they may have a different > operational environment, or a different threat model.) Set 2: > 1. Section 10.1.1 talks about "IP Forwarding Table MIB" > The revision of this MIB document (that you refer to) has a number > of deprecated and obsoleted objects. I think what you want (intend) > to say is that an agent must implement those objects that are > required as per ipForwardFullCompliance or ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance. > > I am also not sure that this is correct: > Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific > portions of this MIB be supported. > Did you mean "IPv4 or IPv6 specific portions" ? > But maybe the sentence is not needed at all. The two MODULE-COMPLIANCEs > that I point you to above specify IP version neurtral objects! > > 2. Similar comments/issue with Sect 10.1.2 > I think you want to refer to CURRENT MODULE-COMPLIANCE, namely > ipMIBCompliance2. Pls check and make sure you be specific as to what > needs to be supported. Set 3: > One bigger issue, which may not be worth a Discuss, but > something that > IMHO should be discussed in some forum: > > All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- > resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with > support for: > > - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; > - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; > - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 > octets. > > .. I'm operationally concerned about the last SHOULD. As far as I > know, EDNS0 is not really implemented. It does not seem to include a > SHOULD to something that hasn't seen practical, wide-spread deployment > already. I'd recommend removing this or rewording it to a MAY. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requireme… john.loughney
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Jari Arkko
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Mark.Andrews
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Mark.Andrews
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Pekka Savola
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Mans Nilsson
- RE: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… john.loughney
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Mans Nilsson
- RE: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Pekka Savola
- Path MTU in node-requirements [was Re: FW: Evalua… Thomas Narten
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Thomas Narten
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Fred Templin
- Re: Path MTU in node-requirements [was Re: FW: Ev… Jari Arkko
- Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requi… Mark.Andrews