IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 18 July 2016 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 2B5D812D86C; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 95L0PdTxGx8j; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D23E612D85C; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3645; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468838961; x=1470048561; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Vav0EdUl+sSoaom2J9siQCyALYnK+goM25zfmWZ+2nM=; b=KjPrpha2VStT1tGw6bjUu/4HHWAybic5/OV3/rN+Yn6NOciw1Aabw9ei s5KyhsOz0yREy3TfYKDU6n92qkUqYGfJMGjOLWN6tJ8mh2Fptb3YCQ+1o dKeoDxF6+1js/ZcfTDyEwp+ov2a+CwRqkNZRuUVTFIwljjx11ExAWNjbV E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CpBQB9s4xX/4YNJK1bgnFOgVIGs2+FBIF5hhoCgTI5EwEBAQEBAQFlJ4RcAQEEASNWBQsCAQgEARMqAgIyJQIEDgUOiBoIsGCNZgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ4OiCIIgk2HQSuCLwWZJAGDNoFuiTqPN5AdASADMYNzboY/fwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,383,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="297214786"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Jul 2016 10:49:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (xch-rcd-015.cisco.com [173.37.102.25]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6IAnKwa018662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:49:21 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:49:20 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:49:20 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "Howard, Lee" <lee.howard@twcable.com>
Thread-Topic: Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08
Thread-Index: AQHR4OIJsOqAEyfHyU2Aa5Q9BpsY/Q==
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:49:20 +0000
Message-ID: <731BDBF9-6EEB-4721-B2E3-32AC66695A43@cisco.com>
References: <D386FF93.75916%evyncke@cisco.com> <7FE9B6A2-5013-4B4A-9959-554BDC9DA120@charter.com>
In-Reply-To: <7FE9B6A2-5013-4B4A-9959-554BDC9DA120@charter.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.202.126]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4228E6C1-D195-47A9-887B-3059ED74D2CE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/GRa4bgbupVoYyizrzurx_siNyik>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-v6@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-v6@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "linkedin@xn--debrn-nva.de" <linkedin@xn--debrn-nva.de>, "fgont@si6networks.com" <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:49:24 -0000

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 8:38 PM, Howard, Lee <lee.howard@twcable.com> wrote:
> 
> 4.3  You say lawful intercept can target “single host (a /128 target)” but if the client is using privacy extensions, that will not be enough detail.

It's theoretically possible to target a single address. However, practically speaking, such a warrant specifies a subscriber, and targets all of his/her communications. So I would think that usually becomes a /64 or whatever is allocated to the subscriber, not a /128.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email