IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 08 February 2015 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 DF21C1A0673; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 16:56:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 XMkdOkMOOKQ6; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 16:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B4F1A1BBB; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 16:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77B9DDA00E8; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 00:56:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376FD53E08A; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 16:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.19.131.139] (12.130.116.84) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 16:56:05 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D6A719.1010401@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:55:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E5880069-B8E0-4BEA-B933-08D0A826C4FE@nominum.com>
References: <20150207194616.20651.30892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D5B607FA-9B47-4F1B-A0C1-FB0C94A97CDB@bogus.com> <FBCB9A82-C8AF-4319-9795-6402921A791E@nominum.com> <54D6A719.1010401@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [12.130.116.84]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/rrjWkZzUZOBSrSovVBIIHfmz4io>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org>, "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>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "opsec-chairs@ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@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: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 00:56:08 -0000

On Feb 7, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, I don't think you should remove this sentence and the normative reference
> to RFC 7045:
> 
>   [RFC7045] requires that nodes be
>   configurable with respect to whether packets with unrecognized
>   headers are forwarded, and allows the default behavior to be
>   that such packets be dropped.

What does that have to do with DHCPv6 shield?   I guess I don't mind if this is included, but it seems unnecessary.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email