IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] WGLC: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Fri, 18 October 2019 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 5EDA8120CC5 for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com header.d=pobox.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 Ru20a0OTltfo for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4229C120CB3 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB489BCB7 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:58:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=sasl; bh=QAz CpOTpeCi8KEccsPlrhYw+ThE=; b=P51pANSdtibDTQ8MO/9djSzHgDq5dWf/C+J +j/TkybRZL9+3nIrEx/fA4lnA6F6KPv/SOfJSuJMvY7yTTLDOTj/riy8F5rjuxPA MJdisVD1Wr2Yr96eFZ/ztIYB10GAUYfuXuEZ4gnSUYgABxfRLL2VpveTNs8YmJgQ bX7gWkWc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b= i8FV3whtG6xvPtkU3x7qR9Xj8AcbDmNfUnuzstjHAMXAEr+pR7XzHx03TrdOBJqZ 0FHo0IfGPqoyzx3zWrY642RxEnqrYeTwquP76ONxsb6kFWYx6z4nvpoK83Tc0NNE 1L7c35ACZTKqJhvF/Q4zrZzD0oAEDaT9n3BSpjV+x/U=
Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F209BCB4 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:58:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-il1-f174.google.com (unknown [209.85.166.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 722379BCAD for <opsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:58:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-il1-f174.google.com with SMTP id v2so5819971ilm.0 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+jOK8JNfk7AsAk90uQYnYXBuQNAduQCIixnoDiBXW0p3wqpNI ytmzdPF5PJcTysoHFlAxbm5mv21+jGoCP9KNNlE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzuPbzn6AkDA3kpSwVDB02qggKIGLjlLDG8LfcB4DGrNFB34j5mgqaRW6MWisBF2Mdq4eYfDsMSLf4RH2QZjEU=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:360b:: with SMTP id d11mr10655740ila.143.1571410692200; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:58:00 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VGnhQNHXY+fB+BdFG+MqH3Hv+0iwoHOEWn-KkHOcS9iOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VGnhQNHXY+fB+BdFG+MqH3Hv+0iwoHOEWn-KkHOcS9iOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Cc: OPSEC <opsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001ae0e3059530905d"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B5510B72-F1B7-11E9-9407-B0405B776F7B-06080547!pb-smtp20.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/lqr5iXnw0cA6V7cNiErU1yU52dQ>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] WGLC: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:58:19 -0000

The document (version -06, expired 2019-01-03) is unchanged since last
year's IETF last call that started in November 2018. That version drew a
lot of substantive comments that have not been addressed (see
thread starting at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KKyXXrvHa5r5mNcqlu_CbkktQmY).
Isn't a WGLC without any discussion of these issues (not even to dismiss
them) somewhat premature? Would it not be more appropriate to comb through
the last call threads, extract the substantive comments, and make a
considered decision what to do about each, possibly after submitting a new
version without changes to un-expire the document?

As a reminder, one of the substantive objections raised was that the
document recommends blanket discarding of unknown next header values,
violating RFC 7045. Expect this to come up again as both a technical and
process issue if it's not fixed (for the latter see Brian Carpenter's
comments in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c0DyXd_rLtMCrHQ3NmmRRGe7Z-A).

Mike Heard

On Thu, 17 October 2019 15:18 UTC Ron Bonica wrote:

> Folks,
>
> This begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering. Please post your comments by 10/31/2019.
>
>                                                        Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email