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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Actually, this document should not be a BCP at all.  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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>