Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20.txt

Hi Eric 

I am completing the Shepards writeup in essay format. Plan to submit in the next few days.

As far as WG consensus and history on the document from its initial I-D state were there any nits other then what is public in the tracker or any WG consensus issues or topics discussed that I should be aware of to include in the write up.  I assume we finally reached WG consensus on all topics with no outstanding issues as we are now ready to publish.

Are there any IPRs disclosed or outstanding. 

Regards,

Gyan 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 2:12 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Gyan,
> 
> Thank you very much for being 'victimteered' as the document shepherd [1] __
> 
> Thank you Jen and Ron for your support
> 
> Regards
> 
> -éric and the authors -kk -merike -enno
> 
> [1] see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-v6/edit/shepherdwriteup/ (you need to create a free account on datatracker if not yet done), the mailing list archive should also be a source of information https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/?q=draft-ietf-opsec-v6
> 
> 
> On 15/10/2019, 01:54, "Gyan Mishra" <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>    Ron
> 
>    I read the document thoroughly in its entirety and do have valuable real world experience in this space so I am volunteering.
> 
>    Not sure what I am getting myself into.😀
> 
>    Gyan
> 
>    Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 14, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Jen,
>> 
>> I am ready to request publication. But before we do that, we need a document shepherd.
>> 
>> Eric,
>> 
>> Was there anyone who was close to the draft, but not a co-author. We can victimteer that person.
>> 
>>                                                     Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> 
>> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 3:41 AM
>> To: opsec@ietf.org
>> Cc: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
>> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20.txt
>> 
>> As you will notice in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R2vH-_v3NugiwIfTcXccEC89zGAXYR4rIB7oMxgV_5Tl11Z9jXZgMMuVCfC0QrYg$  this latest revision addresses a suggestion by Gyan Mishra issued during the Working Group Last Call. Other changes are mainly replacing the normative "MUST" and "SHOULD" as it is an informational document (so it is now "must" and "should") + removing an unused informational reference.
>> 
>> Jen and Ron, as the authors have addressed all comments received during the WGLC (actually by only one reviewer) and the extensive review by Jen, may I kindly request publication of this document?
>> 
>> Thank  you all
>> 
>> -éric -merike - kk -enno
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/10/2019, 09:34, "OPSEC on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org" <opsec-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>   A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>   This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure WG of the IETF.
>> 
>>           Title           : Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks
>>           Authors         : Eric Vyncke
>>                             Kiran K. Chittimaneni
>>                             Merike Kaeo
>>                             Enno Rey
>>       Filename        : draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20.txt
>>       Pages           : 52
>>       Date            : 2019-10-12
>> 
>>   Abstract:
>>      Knowledge and experience on how to operate IPv4 securely is
>>      available: whether it is the Internet or an enterprise internal
>>      network.  However, IPv6 presents some new security challenges.  RFC
>>      4942 describes the security issues in the protocol but network
>>      managers also need a more practical, operations-minded document to
>>      enumerate advantages and/or disadvantages of certain choices.
>> 
>>      This document analyzes the operational security issues in several
>>      places of a network (enterprises, service providers and residential
>>      users) and proposes technical and procedural mitigations techniques.
>>      Some very specific places of a network such as the Internet of Things
>>      are not discussed in this document.
>> 
>> 
>>   The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-v6/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R2vH-_v3NugiwIfTcXccEC89zGAXYR4rIB7oMxgV_5Tl11Z9jXZgMMuVCVgtmnGd$ 
>> 
>>   There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R2vH-_v3NugiwIfTcXccEC89zGAXYR4rIB7oMxgV_5Tl11Z9jXZgMMuVCQdAq-nG$ 
>>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R2vH-_v3NugiwIfTcXccEC89zGAXYR4rIB7oMxgV_5Tl11Z9jXZgMMuVCTaFWv3h$ 
>> 
>>   A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R2vH-_v3NugiwIfTcXccEC89zGAXYR4rIB7oMxgV_5Tl11Z9jXZgMMuVCfC0QrYg$ 
>> 
>> 
>>   Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>   until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>>   Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R2vH-_v3NugiwIfTcXccEC89zGAXYR4rIB7oMxgV_5Tl11Z9jXZgMMuVCXkuUebd$ 
>> 
>>   _______________________________________________
>>   OPSEC mailing list
>>   OPSEC@ietf.org
>>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R2vH-_v3NugiwIfTcXccEC89zGAXYR4rIB7oMxgV_5Tl11Z9jXZgMMuVCVjA-7t2$ 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSEC mailing list
>> OPSEC@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
> 
> 