IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: AUTH48 changes to draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 507A3130DF2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:14:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XV9bFjlwtLCh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBAC0130E1B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id n8so1035133otl.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:14:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G+EnitAdnza/84KMlWwwRxqLMB+KUtL7wwbjD9RIoYw=; b=Sgu7bsKYgTIlDiHBx0/NcYLyfiMhvQqGQz9lxSRoXy4M9fxgNxbNUTYaKPIVndfXP2 PwATQi15NkGaX9KPVzuwO07ELV3BjG1mFLanJgjTdIaF/NoYUq08EFBsojRrFb4wdrSg fxZWyLQE5hifaY5ZFW3Z97WSOcPK5eS60dj7s+0BnmwTgNXdn6iuAqeFqsO3dUGx8dw3 Vepbtm2cOhMVLAoDpngFtyU7LMy4wXIiqhtsxVE9zNPKGxvtZuPoaoSU88ivWA2cRscM OwNXTKEyQbdX97rUdEGAZ0qpnjRmuvorHaibqce9G7KDAiFMzWRTMLn05L9PplfmGKyU lsHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G+EnitAdnza/84KMlWwwRxqLMB+KUtL7wwbjD9RIoYw=; b=XfhnEnx2rXeZHK+YWQR3fNPKHVYTl2mROIC6DsgeumWn14D+5BpYZRq8vBV49qVl9m ec52TpnR74glaDz4Oq4hlTkgGAmJ5S1LtBrzfUnFGw2z3pKItWHaFq0ywbuWZC4KhprZ o+Ah20YlKo1Z5FCq5MnFJsQ5uAdTc5IEsFcQMpYKCcGRA9hpEyeEy1AlMzJW4g7OwiIz sdmGqXMx9tbv8roIK4GiSEsyFYOzsen7w9vjnaUt5lFcH/0seEFeStnulzGYCDmChb0H uIMe9vtSj4a8C/1qeEy017zLWn5av/KThqZ/T4+toDCPkLdwHjxl1fDiW9dRkXiBnHnu bEFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYW/3TwNnqVkaM1MkpJryr3n8roJ3eEY5E5ypxN884LVjfs/FKM iDkjfRyhUQSObfN2Enr3ccIGvnEq4uMr4HPNwctZlQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W6x6KKUKY7IUU216olFYwcF8o8zVhNf3mQoTi6yXW8V2rmV+W4IGj2P+d4Wmu5vy/i8ccysN1pENn8RhSsr/I=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:70d5:: with SMTP id w21mr15959591otj.301.1545300853906; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:14:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8A9ACE0F-8EF7-48D7-AB1A-309D05A350CC@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0RGKMD4QM+DJLi1787e7WpEtNr98BZHUbXFCK5UtJKvg@mail.gmail.com> <FB206647-95EA-4B1D-BCCA-B9AE15B333CE@jisc.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <FB206647-95EA-4B1D-BCCA-B9AE15B333CE@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:14:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2=54MBwjo09d9zeificoOy2CGmUstEBiiChO09PGrMZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUTH48 changes to draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis@ietf.org, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000786c70057d7164d0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TeCGJXRdOoB9BKfeJYDhYi-DrQY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:14:17 -0000

I'm saying there is no need to repeat that message in RFC6434. If we do
repeat it, we should cite 6980.

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:10 PM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

> > On 20 Dec 2018, at 06:34, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:21 PM Suresh Krishnan <
> suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   There are two proposed (non-editorial) changes to be made to
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09 during the AUTH48 period and I would like to
> check with the WG if anyone has objections to these changes. I personally
> think that these are reasonable changes to make.  If I do not hear any
> objections by end of day December 27th 2018 (AOE), I will approve these
> changes and send this along the RFC publication path.
> >
> > Change 1) Text change in Section 5.4.
> >
> > Old:
> > Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC 4861 states:
> >
> > New:
> > Neighbor Discovery MUST be supported with the noted exceptions below.
> > RFC 4861 states:
> >
> > Support. This clarifies that the only exceptions for ND are the ones
> written immediately below. That's pretty clearly the intent of the text
> already.
> >
> > Change 2) New text in Section 5.4.
> > ...
> > As per RFC 6980, hosts MUST NOT employ IPv6 fragmentation for sending
> any of the following Neighbor Discovery and SEcure Neighbor Discovery
> messages: Neighbor Solicitation, Neighbor Advertisement, Router
> Solicitation, Router Advertisement, Redirect, or Certification Path
> Solicitation.
> >
> > Why? This new text text places a hard limit on the number and size of
> the options that may be inserted in such a packet, and provides zero
> rationale. That's not good for text in a BCP. I don't see why it needs to
> be included. It's already written in RFC 6980.
>
> Well, RFC 6980 is standards track (not informational) and was published 5
> years ago.  The principal rationale is in the abstract.
>
> Are you aware of implementations that are still fragmenting such ND
> messages?
>
> Are you suggesting we should deprecate RFC 6980. Either we believe it is
> good practice and encourage its adoption, if some implementations do still
> ignore it, or we say we no longer believe its applicable.
>
> Tim
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email