Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

James Woodyatt <> Thu, 29 January 2015 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C6B1A6FEF for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.079
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GHVXIy9PzLuU for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F04961A6FFA for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a141so30662221oig.5 for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=4W/LRJl9KKjwtysIyZkr2mZaUS6/JFELpBoX092MwWI=; b=edTFcEla1RzlyKrH7NsHyZFbrvjXSHKWN0PG/GMzFXzg76rhskCgBMTQak3DdGJiz2 HjAV3P+BMNf/GnqK+mz10aeG6cKf86ZksXp+56dkrAg/2rl60AILhXdN3xebJrfcnByi qXIXj/q8RdoeTmefgVEYHkEyZYYYaXFukPKWE2Avuhs5WAjwlKdcpmgb5pfJEJa2mcbx CnzM+/bZgi27iXYe6XM3WswfAqJRL7NGgIf2Of1pJ5sYUChXwZxAO+cgaJ3wgOXdlNTo S26OjKCLoirDyMJStsdtxSuFMHOQL94MwZ5K9XhIVKelXeFJNejP8rXN/oa8Ams8JKjQ hOoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSQZqy4zbEmPXtJCDSdFV4qA2nGad0Mlf+fDz/pGEH2hToSYrOPQBI/dSzmrejCcUmw/Ji
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id of6mr1564693obb.53.1422562033180; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: James Woodyatt <>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f503a5ca8b41e050dd0085a
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:07:16 -0000


Editorial: the section for Security Considerations currently says this:

Security-related considerations that apply when the cellular
> device provides LAN features are specified in [RFC6092
> <>].

This sentence is a bit awkward— but more importantly, RFC 6092 is not a
specification, and the chain of citation that lead to its reference here is
far from clear.  I suggest the following wordier but more helpful

In the case of cellular devices that provide LAN features, compliance with
> L_REC#2 entails compliance with RFC 6204, which in turn recommends
> compliance with Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer
> Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service [
> RFC6092 <>]. Therefore, the security
> considerations in section 6 of that document are relevant. In particular,
> it bears repeating here that the true impact of stateful filtering may be a
> reduction in security, and that IETF make no statement, expressed or
> implied, as to whether using the capabilities described in any of these
> documents ultimately improves security for any individual users or for the
> Internet community as a whole.

p.s. I also share all of Lorenzo's other specific concerns about this
draft, as well as his broad general objections.

james woodyatt <>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering