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

[Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 2:15
> Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01
> 
> Actually, this document should not be a BCP at all. 

I was thinking that there are a number of RFCs/drafts recommending unpredictable or less predictable field values, with probably more coming because of RFC7258, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack" (I think I've come across two different drafts recommending similar for DHCPv6 field values). So perhaps there should be a more general IAB BCP advising that "Initial and Ongoing Field Values Should Be Unpredictable By Default".

More specific ones such as this would then be PS.

> This document does
> two things:
> 
> 1. Updates 2460 to not use predictable IDs
> 
> 2. Provides implementation guidance on generating those fragment IDs.
> 
> Both of the above should be done in standards track documents.  I would
> suggest changing the draft from BCP to PS.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/5/14 3:09 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>>  Folks,
>> 
>>  In general, I support the concept, but have a procedural question:
>> 
>>  1) Can a BCP UPDATE a Standards Track document?
>>  2) If not, we have two options. These are 
>>      a) publish this draft as PS
>>                  b) publish this draft as BCP and change the text in Section 
> 4 to be more of a recommendation than an UPDATE to RFC 2460 with a MUST 
> statement.
>> 
>>  Personally, I think that the latter is more palatable. If we did the 
> former, many existing IPv6 implementations would become non-compliant with the 
> IPv6 standard. If we did the latter, many existing IPv6 implementations would be 
> non-compliant with the BCP, while remaining compliant with the IPv6 standard.
>> 
>>                                                                             
>                                    Ron
>> 
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
>>>  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:07 AM
>>>  To: 6man WG
>>>  Cc: 6man Chairs
>>>  Subject: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01
>>> 
>>>  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
>>>  [e-mail]
>>>  Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>  [e-mail]
>>  Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>