Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04

Fernando Gont <> Mon, 12 November 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA5621F878C; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:39:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTGklmQsPuLc; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AF021F878B; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <>) id 1TXyun-0001kb-Bb; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:39:21 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:38:29 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:09:14 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:39:30 -0000

Hi, Kathleen,

My apologies for the delay in my response - it seems that I had not seen
this email! Please find my comments in-line...

On 07/12/2012 11:01 AM, wrote:
> Review Summary:
> The draft is mostly ready (the draft introduces new requirements to
> protect against specific attack vectors and addresses them well), but I
> would recommend some stronger language in the Security Considerations
> section in the following areas:
> In the start of the security considerations section, it says that
> ‘advice’ is given to correct the problems.  Reading through the draft
> this updates and this draft, would saying ‘new requirements’ or
> ‘additional requirements’ be better?  

How about "it introduces requirements for RA-Guard implementations"?

(i.e., RFC 6105 was infrmational, and didn't include any formal

> Also, to be compliant with this BCP, shouldn’t the security
> considerations section just require compliance with RFC5722?  

It woudld e inappropriate: RA-Guard is implemented at the layer-2
devices connecting the nodes to be protected, while the requirement to
implement RFC5722 would aim at *those* nodes we want to protect.

Put another way, there's nothing an RA-Guard implementer can do to
force/push compliance with RFC5722 by other nodes.



Best regards,
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492