[secdir] draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBD01F0C92; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H6i4jRolwCm8; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2810A21F8470; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so4749782obq.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=teF6+M7MQmH8nqvXlOW5WLkpAt291DxwbdwKzC55trI=; b=OKqwTUE3VJ0sWPGGyLCPWKq5gu/1jsyjgb0y9VAbjFhHVMs3WLq/E68kbkq1Yfpouk bXZQHGACWPc2BauhuvW+y+swdtU19r+Pt4uuifPE3Sl2j9qpxycDl9ijTraCr9x9RMXf 7gQiQC7zZn8RLVWUFM3ipSQZT/Kht2nh2V/JjUmNuXzVS7s7793uwbsEMNSLfCKn6t0g Z5iyTycNSd5qKnaO3vqgu7VwhRKGW4WOOdPtZCGO4Qi0T9cpg6xGIy8XfoUs3xz6Qhgt siNkBSHu7bt5Ga/Hhb8I/NC8oIJArLq+sO5cG4LmNwKpJdpiJFD3yeKNqnPCWU2pRe+L Bs5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.31.135 with SMTP id a7mr12047642oei.26.1351030273774; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.27.103 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:11:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwj75TJ3OttfMOqZ=dkMQZFe1PAZTXG=+KoGwp6M87TG9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f59a8c942f04ccc13f08
Subject: [secdir] draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:11:15 -0000

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

The draft is a discussion of the reasons why a stateless solution to
mapping IPv4 addresses to IPv6 is desirable. As such the security
considerations are probably best dealt with in the manner that the document
addresses them, pointing out that a stateless approach has the advantage of
not having state.

While the draft might have been a little easier to follow if it was a
little more concrete, for example how is the statelessness to be achieved
and what are the costs of this approach (which must presumably exist or
else why use a statefull mapping), this will have to be addressed in any
implementation draft.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/