IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06: (with COMMENT)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 21 August 2018 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AF4129C6B; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 K-0nKsJLKDIl; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D10127148; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id e23-v6so51884lfc.13; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G++osF0SMi1GQSzX87mCaN/xvvPtCv2TWPHDNK//fLM=; b=KXoGjsI4avFjfDtckWFnMCjpi4IE1E7ybVwoNbECC9eJciNrrk4ohqeyRNyUK0Kvni OH3binSkAS2XkEY9nvxSm5It8t84fS/WkEvXTDBFciS+B/TcLT9IvZuvE16MKM8p1nIi AoJtpCfrTDA3aUNfKi5woqdpd6zMnr0bmryFeA+qK4dv1DjoRhMsvTTjCCDPIjs1Xrec 8eRLmVfVBpWNvfH23oqT+oNWGW9jiYyhE1OiFiG2yNhzzYzAzU0IppmgmWv7Rll2zdID Fy8kRlwe05tirH1tGpiajeipVNI4lO0KfBeTvl3jPuWV1fnLwTf27lUSjYWvBS83nPgi rPRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHrk9eF1G+QoyNS6JPjFhoB4qpSnIQBzkqbcKwRlk8hpEkSDqpM Y/p7OLufVGhJ2tC8tXbx9pM0z9Y4l3p2U/M4zAk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxqpx3ulOHbQqs5CQSxLjtNTSow9SBugXJWYrJaYTK7M3cVpDCjrfiPZPGciIzOv2G5KodFLvkMKSt7q0sSLcE=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c4c9:: with SMTP id u192-v6mr5004958lff.87.1534894712686; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153321790308.2265.731201835682425291.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BAQVqWajKtnsAZ4Ys52BZS7hkoD2E0vmB-Dg=+pYndxCMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeEUKWBA1St3du0aJ=KQJenj-j0XGXwiPQGk9CZJN24Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BASV+gJmgoBRb6eTpAioUQN73LVc5BZvBKU-hEgk_mvUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASV+gJmgoBRb6eTpAioUQN73LVc5BZvBKU-hEgk_mvUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:38:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdNXvBqLGnaY=xwifbjFNczPkSFs0QUuPuWxuDE9_LY8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, Russ White <russ@riw.us>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, suresh@kaloom.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e0c030573fa8630"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Vn7lZgSbXkHVUs5-Ovt9BVg-lW4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 23:38:37 -0000

At Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:09:28 +1000,
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've submitted -08 version
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras/
>
> where
>
> "Actually it would not even be possible as Section 5.5.3 of [RFC4862]
> prevents hosts from setting valid lifetime for
> addresses to zero."
>
> is replaced with
>
> "Actually it would not even be possible for unauthenticated RAs (which
> is the most common deployment scenario) as Section 5.5.3 of RFC4862]
> prevents hosts from setting valid lifetime for
> addresses to zero unless RAs are authenticated."

(I guess it's needless to say but) looks good to me.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email