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 01:30 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 A1D2B1A1B8A; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:34 -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 SK_sYKaz0fLp; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:32 -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 C12411A1B7F; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:32 -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 41A24DA027B; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 01:30:32 +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 00D1253E084; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:32 -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; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 17:30:32 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502081507150.24776@shell4.bayarea.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:30:13 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <72C73500-E6C4-4D75-9CFA-8FE4B012AB9E@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>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/7YowuHpCDq6BqoT90sX0WrVY1P4>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org>, "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@gmail.com" <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 01:30:34 -0000

On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:21 PM, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> Would your objections be addressed if Section 3 of the draft were 
> replaced by something along the lines of the following?

No.   This is not a draft about filtering extension headers.  It is a draft about filtering DHCP.   The two are unrelated, and should not be discussed as if they were related.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email