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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 21 September 2019 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E4F12010F for <>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 14:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yfNoMb0pB8eP for <>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 14:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A359D1200F8 for <>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 14:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w10so5746681pgj.7 for <>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 14:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1BIiTMszu7hsDox3slPFkdH2Gm8554zEPxV8QLhD0jw=; b=XqfsiADEP7KP0qN3n3XUMo/cSqx3QQNUHOY5OekFBxC2oh6kdtwkpMeqsVfSc2dp5h NEmKs/3OHgIqZeh80ns3YQ+AOAG/BBaobOcJks3y38jpDttULwd7Rq3LcX9QZctqDz9H EYtxKQMHtU02+6gMW1GqvRjfRIqeoa1E+ovb9EvK8IHAgo5smbkvTQpRTIPCTlyochQl MyYkkO/staXnpWU3LQkT+r7vOzNRaz37DbkFlftWT2SHjumyrIwC+QI98TV1D2+9Vg9H 9FKhIP4iSF8xXeZOnDPIyoWvXI8jbHMc5QYG3PA+tkd06ZLKKxMZaoSjno3XFBPfZU+p LnjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1BIiTMszu7hsDox3slPFkdH2Gm8554zEPxV8QLhD0jw=; b=hdO9hHwL1hK3IrifWhtta1EwrjrfkBZHv5dq8i3im0mUlwI1082WPIvOsFL0elmeca KouWgWMXeAZPEx6qKAwcA2+RwzfJWinrhLarX+nkS4oXVaE+Ih/6c0BHJGcnlr7w6nNd stqjzZ80ZHcbUR4+YEt0ScEzLrk93OwGJ73x59ZA9v/+ILhXWMn/dsTDM4qzipDQV1UX DnhPwRh426HsKJIWnYIKHHvSsvOWFaNXxnKIH8SkaNdifE0L/WHLYieyYZM0WhdIqfUO nwFuRZOpclvrxHxFaXiOCuKjJAH8HGFyNtHhSF5yJVx5hfD1RDUy8nHe8ZF2Uvs5cPtk LY3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXhNxH091+31RwVql8m2AbjXPjh1U8BdLuL0u+WLkUgN4OvFJTY Pi/3/DBQgKsSCslSopwRQkqsRqTt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwBdmEnn8eQwn7PQ4U/l5g10ceCAl3VLOuXe79fZMaEOImtJe6znhgy7+B6t5hQ0wOxP24I/Q==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8d85:: with SMTP id i5mr19706719pfr.89.1569100411839; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 127sm7767339pfc.115.2019. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 21 Sep 2019 14:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 09:13:29 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-18.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 21:13:34 -0000


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

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].

   Brian Carpenter