IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Mon, 09 February 2015 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 3B50B1A1A25 for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:08:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 lzHNqst1joKw for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:08:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4D291A1A12 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:08:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 26211 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2015 07:08:12 -0800
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 9 Feb 2015 07:08:11 -0800
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:08:11 -0800
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <54D8B220.2030204@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502090700440.22936@shell4.bayarea.net>
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> <54D8B220.2030204@innovationslab.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/NTLnCvgJEHaYvD-fM3uuRAJiL1A>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "opsec-chairs@ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
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 15:08:16 -0000

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Brian Haberman wrote:
> I have interpreted Ted's position to be that this document should simply
> point to RFC 7045 (or its successor) for handling unknown extension headers.

I am probably confused, but the intended substance of the proposal 
in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/msg01819.html 
was just that, and it got rejected.

//cmh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email