IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 09 February 2015 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032921A8765; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 NzxlgAQMzF5n; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 716F71A8785; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F46BDA0213; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:23:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17D353E080; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:23:34 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D8F98D.1030101@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:23:28 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B3474476-3FA1-484E-BAAD-E7A6474BA11C@nominum.com>
References: <20150207194616.20651.30892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D5B607FA-9B47-4F1B-A0C1-FB0C94A97CDB@bogus.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502071930100.25761@shell4.bayarea.net> <06B01D8E-981D-4D06-B6CC-3B5CE92782C5@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502080813060.2950@shell4.bayarea.net> <D97E8BB3-0DB3-4B41-8C91-DBB3121DCEF7@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502081507150.24776@shell4.bayarea.net> <72C73500-E6C4-4D75-9CFA-8FE4B012AB9E@nominum.com> <7516AD5C-1152-4020-B050-FA0383B58DBA@viagenie.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502081734120.24776@shell4.bayarea.net> <97C8D14E-D440-4625-8F26-83AF26917CF2@nominum.com> <54D83E7F.3040207@gmail.com> <E478028B-8FFC-47B4-B12D-F0A32227A726@nominum.com> <54D83FCE.4070804@qti.qualcomm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502082137570.16054@shell4.bayarea.net> <96CE509D-3B6E-49B8-98F6-CB8581787D7E@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502090708270.22936@shell4.bayarea.net> <174AA530-3993-4894-BCE7-2AE8818EB35E@nominum.com> <54D8F98D.1030101@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/5iTjLUUy4jM0eFcNlZDuaLDZKac>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "opsec-chairs@ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:23:37 -0000

On Feb 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 1) Let us assume that either a new EH that doesn't follow RFC6564 is
> specified (since, as noted, RFC6564 doesn't buy you anything), or that
> the proposal in draft-gont-6man-rfc6564bis-00 gets standardized, and
> hence new EHs follow the EH format in that document.

Come on, Fernando, this is ridiculous.   RFC 6564 is normative.   We should not expect new EHs to be standardized that do not conform with RFC 6564.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email