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

James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Thu, 29 January 2015 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C6B1A6FEF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.079
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GHVXIy9PzLuU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com (mail-oi0-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F04961A6FFA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f46.google.com with SMTP id a141so30662221oig.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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 10.182.130.166 with SMTP id of6mr1564693obb.53.1422562033180; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.150.2 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B7D61F30-BAC4-4BE0-A5FD-1D4BD4652E55@employees.org>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <B7D61F30-BAC4-4BE0-A5FD-1D4BD4652E55@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:07:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CADhXe52bTnPXz3H6kxscKSsutd-ZKx-TCTP2sh=YdbeerArT3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f503a5ca8b41e050dd0085a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PpZkx6Y5gZknFIBpJ284GnTmMxE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:07:16 -0000

Additionally—

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
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/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
replacement:

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 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/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 <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering