Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security WGLC

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Marc Lampo <[e-mail]>wrote:

> This document states, for several recommendations in RFC 6092, exactly the
> opposite of that document.
>

Which ones? Obviously you're not suggesting that RFC 6092 recommends that
unsolicited inbound packets be dropped by default, right? Because it
doesn't say that.


> In addition, as I touched in my very first reaction, this draft lists a
> number of threats - section 2.
>  But, in my opinion, none of those threats are addressed by the rules for
> balanced security - section 3.1.
>  (my first comment only referred to the last threat on covert channels,
> but I must rephrase)
>

Do you have text to suggest?


> In reply to the question : yes, personally I would be happier if the ISP
> dropped all unsolicited packets towards my network (except IPsec).
>

And there are people in this working group that will never agree with you.
For example, I will never agree with you.

But fortunately, that has no relevance on this document. Since this
document does not recommend a security policy, saying "I don't like the
security policy" (which is your opinion, and one you're perfectly entitled
to) is not a valid reason not to publish this document.