IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] [ALU] Re: [v6ops] Fwd: WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6

Merike Kaeo <merike@doubleshotsecurity.com> Tue, 18 April 2017 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <merike@doubleshotsecurity.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 8910F1318C4 for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 v1lHP0VAcjnr for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2BFF1317B4 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dsn11.skype ([216.160.75.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id v3IEip8O008227 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:44:51 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA261E35-2529-484D-8270-2844595D42E0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Merike Kaeo <merike@doubleshotsecurity.com>
In-Reply-To: <49F5F519-CF93-48AB-AB22-4CC60FF8D6FA@doubleshotsecurity.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:44:50 -0700
Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <2F3F2792-3B92-4B25-BBFD-B1C72A88F2D1@doubleshotsecurity.com>
References: <55cb757e-ee2d-4818-9fc2-67d559006f34@me.com> <3E179F05-ACCD-4290-A65F-57E4202FAA15@icloud.com> <CAAedzxoUF-q_13vDmW4FU1c5gMewYi78iOv7RwXpnBgvf++3Nw@mail.gmail.com> <D5DB835B-D681-472C-A26E-FE0380C1FFAD@alcatel-lucent.com> <CAAedzxprXFyZPirksPtpz3xmFcfGmAP=m-c6Qgx+R7vUdu+DmQ@mail.gmail.com> <49F5F519-CF93-48AB-AB22-4CC60FF8D6FA@doubleshotsecurity.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVaL2U5xVts5tQ16Ux9uOuNzcXom0Fu15DhrFF0F1Z5a3DcCkFBW1ZlOMkqeh34gyfGScxiEvatKgacclVPnH9XE7u5OxtoTHYs=
X-Sonic-ID: C;ypndk0Uk5xG1yyCc7bdh1w== M;mioilEUk5xG1yyCc7bdh1w==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/t1SccPIEOUUHP4JwOFlHRaV3pb8>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [ALU] Re: [v6ops] Fwd: WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:44:56 -0000

Looking at archives was quicker than expected.  Unless the subject got changed, the only comments I see from last July are [adding folks who replied in email snippet for clarification]:

—

On 8 July 2016 at 18:36, Erik Kline <ek@google.com <mailto:ek@google.com>> wrote:
>>> Section 2.1.2 is far too permissive for my tastes.  We need to be able
>>> to say that ULA+IPv6 NAT is NOT RECOMMENDED by the IETF.
>> 
>> [Eric Vyncke] I changed the end of the section 2.1.2 to reflect this. Albeit, I am
>> unsure whether there is a clear statement by the IETF about not using ULA
>> + NPTv6 (and I would LOVE to see such a statement)
> 
> [EK] Then please go ahead and make that statement in your document.
> 
> I, for one, will help defend it.  :-)

[Lorenzo +1’d this]

[Mark Smith]
Depending on an experimental RFC for your security sounds like a
really bad idea to me!
——

I’d love to have more folks weigh in on this topic so that authors can get group consensus.

- merike

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Merike Kaeo <merike@doubleshotsecurity.com> wrote:
> 
> I am unclear as to what the comment and/or request for change of language is.  I will look at list archives from last year to determine what the discussion may have been but it would be useful to have some more context.  I am aware of folks using ULAs (not something I personally favor).  In past versions, as the current language was drafted, the authors were weighing heavily on appropriate language.
> 
> Pointers appreciated to any past thread.
> 
> - merike
> 
> 
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:35 AM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com <mailto:ek@google.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Didn't we already have a bunch of discussion about this in v6ops and work very carefully to come to text?
>> 
>> On 18 April 2017 at 16:34, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com <mailto:gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>> wrote:
>> Relaying message to WGLC discussion alias
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> G/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Erik Kline <ek@google.com <mailto:ek@google.com>>
>> Date: Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 09:30
>> To: Gunter Van De Velde <guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com <mailto:guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com>>
>> Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>, 6man <6man@ietf.org <mailto:6man@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: [ALU] Re: [v6ops] Fwd: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2.1.2.  Use of ULAs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Still?  Really?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 April 2017 at 16:18, Gunter Van De Velde <guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com <mailto:guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear 6man, v6ops,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Due to the IPv6 focus of "draft-ietf-opsec-v6" the OPSEC WGLC for this document may be of interest to both 6man as v6ops.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please send your feedback to OPSEC email list, where discussion around this document should take place.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> 
>> G/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Gunter Van De Velde <guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com <mailto:guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com>>
>> 
>> Subject: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6
>> 
>> Date: 12 April 2017 at 09:39:28 GMT+2
>> 
>> To: opsec@ietf.org <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
>> 
>> 
>> This is to open a two week WGLC for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6>.
>> 
>> If you have not read it, please do so now. You may send nits to the author, but substantive discussion should go to the list.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I will close the call on 26 April 2017
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> G/
>> 
>> Sent from iCloud
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSEC mailing list
>> OPSEC@ietf.org <mailto:OPSEC@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSEC mailing list
>> OPSEC@ietf.org <mailto:OPSEC@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email