Re: [OPSEC] Revisting Re: Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) (now 06)

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 21:31 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 3B3741A90EC for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
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 cDjKNOF8UX2w for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
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 C48781A90E9 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 7115 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2015 14:26:38 -0700
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 18 Mar 2015 14:26:38 -0700
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:26:38 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <5509B82E.9070108@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1503181417460.1432@shell4.bayarea.net>
References: <20150207194616.20651.30892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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> <B3474476-3FA1-484E-BAAD-E7A6474BA11C@nominum.com> <54D90EE5.2060002@gmail.com> <5C9CF492-A795-4023-BB91-28B1B52706E4@nominum.com> <54D92987.2080505@gmail.com> <CDA3CF60-BB2E-4F77-B325-B3057C01FBD1@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502091713320.26279@shell4.bayarea.net> <FFC8BDEA-51BB-4D18-8240-F360CD9A7566@nominum.com> <54D98F62.4080508@bogus.com> <ADCFDFED-5EF9-4121-A323-562C1E33C2F5@nominum.com> <54DA500C.5070908@si6networks.com> <FFAF547B-0F11-4382-B9B6-4932455F88C9@nominum.com> <5509B82E.9070108@bogus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/g6IPRZeWtsKCD6E430EQsa39JsQ>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org>, 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>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.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] Revisting Re: Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) (now 06)
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:31:18 -0000

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, joel jaeggli wrote:
> We got a new version of this draft on 2/25 which I kinda of lost track
> of in the midst of two IESG review calls.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-06.txt
> 
> It stops short of  my interpretation  of Ted's position, with the
> reordered and clarified test in section 3. 

The text in Section 3 seems to have dropped the step saying that if 
the packet is identified to be a DHCPv6 packet meant for a DHCPv6 
client then DHCPv6-Shield MUST drop the packet.

The new explanatory text in the security considerations looks good 
to me.


//cmh