IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-03

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 20 October 2017 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont.mobile@gmail.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 D9717132A1A; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 AgHaUDFV1pNy; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (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 E6ED012ECEC; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n70so8258539vkf.11; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=OLQkMsRvzv3DeSupQvmhevemnsjWGxmtjCwtJu0VWCg=; b=Vprrp/RrBFZFRjgUXvOvyT42EnG+h8zW4Zz8VnO9EiL6VAZHNYrFCZxckSBqIQd4i5 v5a3CAM1LZIOm+4BmNuuBhx1orUcX2TRRKq5vR9HgXyRkQIFScBwPy6wHP4YnYQ1iiBj HiCZn0naj1X9j7LohXa76VpCH1s0INWuejd0LaZKufvmXXdZID3jiCwME0+3GE8R2Dke RC33r5hcbHupWBal6oXDqKIU9QK4ZT13ctVOjfiXK7+u0f/LXRFENwI+AKXBdxoPsXPA NeuEKeHwPKzPIWIUeSJMyhRsgJoQDwwuvQ8nhbWZjz8aQq77Hct/N4Sshe2Xl/Nsbt82 9Nkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OLQkMsRvzv3DeSupQvmhevemnsjWGxmtjCwtJu0VWCg=; b=tDDvi4zBLDTKFy0v81ZSbScK2tZZaAdFNyvC4cJa9ljldNbXqcl4u++LsWLS6RqDTS aQPhP8fB7SFWEJ70CcgMGOGMx2Ezeg2IOh4yjkmHDLAHiL/dGxj7BeCF72mRq9tH8UMv 6S/FhoFHcz4dGLVMKU1tj0tFS6K6wD198i9SsAZrMxBZ92Nqt3PIhecz8NXpSwKyW8ps S8hA8b35Hj/zOBodW0jENaCsqtmuwq7QPUeW4DmiySRe2hNP+yhLPWc/PQprhHUBq6yN yyfHo3kG2JKIP/kecQuSrZl5RJ/H/9oS/lxoEdIe0pq9ob2yjtfCpSyj8FOPlfL7qEpJ H/Ow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVHyTTphSmI+C4OKX1lpShAd3djqNrLv44i+2TK7pIuQ00pApyt Wmb2vXHUeUl9f6vFhWSFD3lXaobSJvWoO+DIT/w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TDUn2FJZN6c79XCle3vu47CmSpWdggWwCjvaW31/4nil1xy+jHtj7jJ+6kXqBgRneSJFB3Dl3tT1ROnRDWC+o=
X-Received: by 10.31.215.68 with SMTP id o65mr267032vkg.95.1508542609820; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: fgont.mobile@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.60.216 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.60.216 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <66b597b7-a6ce-3f1a-5fd2-ccae882ca667@gmail.com>
References: <8C3BB7BE-4E84-4D44-8DA9-BBE80EA51752@nokia.com> <2C2BE7A7-C885-4B38-ADA4-B29EADEED387@gmail.com> <91dcdfa8-a4fd-c2b4-9371-defa2b24c551@si6networks.com> <66b597b7-a6ce-3f1a-5fd2-ccae882ca667@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:36:48 -0300
X-Google-Sender-Auth: o9_xmZT1d4AJrFcJeUXZjcaAXO0
Message-ID: <CAG6TeAtHC02UCrYULcehyQ6sGz3T=A446fyu_2o31ncqtLUjcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07d9646310ec055c02f2fe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/tWQpXZOnPOcbEa-1Z0Hq_IItD6w>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-03
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 23:36:53 -0000

(sorry for top-posting)

I meant: everywhere there's diverging behaviour between rfc2460 and
rfc8200, note both behaviors.

We can center discussion on rfc8200, and make refs to rfc2460 look like
"notes" (e.g., "rrc2470 used to blah blah...').

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Fernando





El 20 oct. 2017 4:42 p. m., "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
escribió:

> On 20/10/2017 22:53, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > Hello, Bob,
> >
> > On 10/04/2017 06:38 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >>
> >> I also don’t think this is ready for a w.g. last call.
> >>
> >> It doesn’t reference the new version of the IPv6 specification
> >> RFC8200.  There were a number of clarifications in RFC8200 regarding
> >> extension headers that may require changes in the draft.
> >
> > We talked a bit about this. Best option seems to be to keep the current
> > text and add text regarding the changes in RFC8200 -- at the end of th
> > day, an operator will have to deal with both RFC2460 and RFC8200
> > implementations.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I don't think that is 100% right. Yes, of course add a general note at
> the front stating that the current standard is 8200 but that many
> implementations were based on 2460. But then, change all the references
> to 8200 and add text where there is an actual difference between the
> two cases. So far I think two have been pointed out:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/StjbjvCP9PLC3ssnTKYO6jqFgk0
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/9FigBATRkVHAurXv3aNNR-Z46JU
> but there may be others.
>
>     Brian
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email