Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption - Recommendations on Filtering of IPv6 Packets Containing IPv6 Extension Headers

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 14 Oct 2014, at 08:02, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 10/13/14 11:50 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/13/2014 10:33 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> On 10/13/14 1:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/13/2014 12:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Exactly. I believe this draft, and the options draft, are *exactly* what
>>>>> the IETF should do (and why we have an E in our name instead of an S;
>>>>> we are not the Internet Standards Task Force). If our standards are
>>>>> unrealistic, we should be the ones to do something about it...
>>>> 
>>>> If it's that our standards are unrealistic, it would be useful to
>>>> address this as changes to the standards.
>>> 
>>> It's not entirely unrealistic to expect a consensus about observed
>>> reality to emerge from ops before it evolves into protocol maintenance.
>> 
>> Observed reality doesn't include recommendations.
>> 
>> And if observed reality requires consensus, I doubt you're describing
>> anything that involves either observation or reality.
> 
> ...
> 
> The goals of the v6ops working group are:
> 
> 1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
> operational issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
> determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. These issues
> will be documented in Informational or BCP RFCs, or in
> Internet-Drafts.
> 
> This work should primarily be conducted by those areas and WGs
> which are responsible and best fit to analyze these problems, but
> v6ops may also cooperate in focusing such work.
> 
> 2. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify potential security
> risks in the operation of shared IPv4/IPv6 networks, and document
> operational practices to eliminate or mitigate those risks.
> 
> This work will be done in cooperation with the Security area and
> other relevant areas or working groups.
> 
> 3. As a particular instance of (1) and (2), provide feedback to
> the IPv6 WG regarding portions of the IPv6 specifications that
> cause, or are likely to cause, operational or security concerns,
> and work with the IPv6 WG to resolve those concerns. This feedback
> will be published in Internet-Drafts or RFCs.
> ...

… which suggests publishing the observations / problem statement in one draft in v6ops, and then progressing   recommendations in a separate document in conjuction with opsec seems perfectly reasonable?

I’m puzzled by the length of this conversation / debate…

Tim