IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-18.txt

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Sun, 22 September 2019 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F83C1201AA for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 T5MgwerUd5p2 for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 EED1D120112 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id v8so11284215wrt.2 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=/lTACDUbl4lhQDW8LAHM4bz6afBxGLICKd+hE8JDHGI=; b=ZLVIy8Rgacx3mtlPv4TbmSu6mXYFZJvg6hDR3TymPnf2QTQhJHZb0Ahn4C4/5ccJw7 0s9aH4wouPaH1YT70F/tIEa2+zvybv5vhKm8c9/r8bjXQ9dcnK0gY34AxImmfNE99SY0 mm72URSN0/Shfx7DVUMNu8XcZdimuPPnD8qyZP7l4R4Dw/y0W7tPMe7msOqvuGFrJZWq i/ZZd3Uvb7OIrb9C40Er1jhtktK7K2t/EmdjejftUDKIeXUE07P8ocsiZM7IgAZNPRsf Djm1b9O0a3IsRr/I2vfYjXLyFWZ7Yrpx2mBGP0dKbxZuwd52uv5Qnn06114+UWAkJMUE vJfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=/lTACDUbl4lhQDW8LAHM4bz6afBxGLICKd+hE8JDHGI=; b=WX/M8gFl4gO9QF/IbThmgqubx+9uHlUjhbPUrOPWldVmi6gkKMlQO4asuQLHtY4eWC TiNuGHLDGc1SPvHmM90sxKAiw39S2NLyX5rPaADCkXMFqH8ZhfoRSz6i5dbI7Va88y/m bHWZaSwlfjAqT1WEHa/38NizD0McgV5nPWo3CTpRTgmZsWipl+cGNmFjjXzvVuZZngvX CLA4QMdbAc2b5liInv3Os6yE5uizNROeSQVnLl4d/1YXWpCnmSn0Z86F5oT69ZOOXm7c yw+EsurEXTc5e7dYJGqtBJCj87+4TUcdwmmlA/GI1/+nm0gxqUpy8mpYI8NlgonRUYol bilw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXqOZiw+F/nEYOiMhErISxdZuRq0TIpm4xIqpTOmhhzWF0BJbQ9 5gfgSAtMXw9bGSh5M1hGShc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx09I5BQCNUWl1Vd5Lp6hZUdoN/uzGXyNvIlb+C4FaioYxivhleKRxJ4f1oiRA3ltT9k0rVLw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4044:: with SMTP id w4mr19630349wrp.281.1569165172432; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:e528:d569:df88:7c1b? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:e528:d569:df88:7c1b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d193sm11093548wmd.0.2019.09.22.08.12.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BF4E8FEC-7332-4657-89E1-1D2C79A44E2E@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0C7AAB03-FE47-4B92-91C6-2EB8F24EA343"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <803DA885-0CB1-45E9-B784-EB051EF30158@cisco.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
References: <156904975523.23067.17396839114206805258@ietfa.amsl.com> <e55e2d8a-0e3b-a80a-8fc6-bfd634d69b9b@gmail.com> <803DA885-0CB1-45E9-B784-EB051EF30158@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/01IiQ6s0MPrC7PNr6XSq4F783ak>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-18.txt
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:12:57 -0000

Eric,

I support Brian’s proposed changes.

Bob


> On Sep 22, 2019, at 5:05 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Thank you for the improved text.
> 
> Expect a -19 any time soon
> 
> -éric
> 
> On 21/09/2019, 23:14, "OPSEC on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <opsec-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>    Hi,
> 
>    I think the ULA section is still not quite right.
> 
>> 2.1.1.  Use of ULAs
>> 
>>   Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] are intended for scenarios
>>   where systems are not globally reachable, despite formally having
>>   global scope.  ULA are not similar to [RFC1918] addresses and have
>>   different use cases.  One use of ULA is described in [RFC4864] and
>>   some considerations on using ULA is described in the draft document
>>   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations]; this document failed to
>>   have the IETF consensus and is now considered as dead.
> 
>    1. I think it is worth mentioning that ULAs should be filtered at domain
>    boundaries.
> 
>    2. Actually they are *similar* to RFC1918 - but they are not the same.
> 
>    3. I don't think there is any use in referencing a draft that you describe
>    as "dead".
> 
>    So, a possible rewrite:
> 
>    2.1.1.  Use of ULAs
> 
>       Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] are intended for scenarios
>       where interfaces are not globally reachable, despite being routed
>       within a domain. They formally have global scope, but RFC 4193
>       sepcifies that they must be filtered out at domain boundaries.
>       ULAs are different from [RFC1918] addresses and have different use
>       cases. One use case is described in [RFC4864].
> 
>    Regards
>       Brian Carpenter
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    OPSEC mailing list
>    OPSEC@ietf.org
>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status