Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] draft-ietf-opsec-v6

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@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 7E183120342; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 mop4HsSnyE9b; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (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 7A35F1201BD; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id s39so157831edb.2; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=JxgMzufMMBESMBkTouukq49avZQz9y5uxG1XP7OJjdE=; b=QlcjNRCaRU83wAHzcVy1ACPozOneL0yaM5nTTgAeDxK6mIZK1bRELywFXk+COMYZr4 ycG0KBNzZJRk77Ktb8Lgfx2eyLzLpzmjxPT4X3XQZhGX56HcT8H+YqRjjEa/QTmqdYRO 5RN5zVKy6C/u4jB28mYQ3F+mwzzZLZpVBV/o9d9nLLv64rsk2FFWBAsX4lDoSYpZmWJ3 n1qlfYpbjBZhqblU3hncxBERLX7NrhBC+obNkEwH5Mnql98sNg3/dKojn4+O0KdSaXGy BhiJjMDJwBLsZYksAJGJwq9PD6hyg9TpGIAXmyFUIGqJxeDES4I6SDH5bXP8k1wVtkzE PiIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=JxgMzufMMBESMBkTouukq49avZQz9y5uxG1XP7OJjdE=; b=G+BJuZ7SInJ12xHRWAYju+RExFsrTJx5lh/6Ebqs0fUpgR+9lNi6ZURUc5uEl08ul3 czUV637Qpg8RkjC7FgbhW0arQu867+JKXlYPqXUYLgt3fI5xwIUTImj37Nzz2j5u2xmK ktSQRhQ1CceoY4/1jeeZIvD9HnIhaH2ewGE3goc8mL27I0NTdxscJK43m2nQKNAiRUXz IzvtjtbaUNiNwZo0IqNmTTMrjMerowpAPqsj4xFyUJ8kkOrX/jojw73BrNB/Mxbdysix U44AiZ4WAkvgv42W2SUw69vMv6qlU9z7Rakyj55ODUwjoiCTOPEoH6Ju36PbhjfFFjV8 4AKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW6h9jFzKrTw2aff1otD5x15H1cW43427A3Dv/szPIQBDipCbSw sDNUKPRpRLM8v9C7c1UAZd0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxXpi7WLL/PeOk4czbZSJxlL86D+BDew9s811c5BF+wEgNq/taNLr6KU9k49k8Pa8pejmUgIQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:e610:: with SMTP id y16mr23618914edm.67.1554845517966; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5600:164::1002? ([2600:8802:5600:164::1002]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k17sm6166921eja.41.2019.04.09.14.31.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5D4BAD99-D920-4AAA-9E1D-A9C931BC73B1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CCBEE20E-0239-4177-999F-43D20FBA4868"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:31:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqe0-AbX=_OByb-X4QbjRVB_mujnt7xzCVpQz6=s9Vh9pA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, opsec@ietf.org
To: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
References: <EF0F0E61-D04D-4484-B62F-9E2AF5EFC667@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqe0-AbX=_OByb-X4QbjRVB_mujnt7xzCVpQz6=s9Vh9pA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/zPrFCWASuCRd2MIQEHuqKKyeOzE>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] draft-ietf-opsec-v6
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 21:32:02 -0000

I do subscribe, so this note may accomplish the goal.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6/ says that [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6] is "dead" from the IESG's perspective. They have asked for a revised draft, over two years ago, and none has been posted.

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 10:48 AM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
> (Note: I don't subscribe to opsec@ietf.org.  So I expect this message
> will be subject to moderation).
> 
> At Fri, 29 Mar 2019 06:18:37 +0100,
> Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yesterday, the authors of an opec draft asked us for comments on their draft, which is in a second WGLC in opec (opsec@ietf.org). You may have missed the character string:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-v6
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6
> >   "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", Eric Vyncke,
> >   Chittimaneni Kk, Merike Kaeo, Enno Rey, 2019-03-11,
> >
> > I'd encourage people to read it and comment on the opec list.
> 
> One quick comment, in case no one pointed it out: Section 2.3.3 refers
> to I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6 as follows:
> 
>    [...] Another way to secure
>    DHCPv6 would be to use the secure DHCPv6 protocol which is currently
>    work in progress per [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6] , but, with no real
>    deployment known by the authors of this document.
> 
> In my understanding, this draft is effectively dead rather than just
> missing deployment.  There may be yet another attempt of restarting it
> in future, but I see no indication of it right now.  Even if the work
> is eventually restarted it will be something completely different from
> the current latest draft.  So I'd suggest either:
> - just remove this sentence, or
> - if you want to keep the reference, make it more consistent with the
>   current situation, like:
>     There was a proposal of secure DHCPv6 protocol [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6],
>     but the work has been effectively suspended and there is no
>     indication of a restart anytime soon.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an interesting comment on projected traffic volume...