IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> Thu, 21 November 2013 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
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 E975D1AE08B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=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 Z7LaBG6gQAZW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761D51A1F55 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4009387008A; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:31:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VR2H4iCmkGfl; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:31:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 163D987007B; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:31:16 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <528DB6C2.9020609@globis.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:31:14 +0100
From: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
References: <201311101900.rAAJ0AR6025350@irp-view13.cisco.com> <CAB0C4xOfz_JAjEEJZ-Zz7MBEyZhVzrAE+8Ghf1ggC3+9pyHmNg@mail.gmail.com> <989B8ED6-273E-45D4-BFD8-66A1793A1C9F@cisco.com> <5288FC15.5080508@globis.net> <CAKD1Yr1gQ8r80NxbJwxbNc8esm1ekk1JGMUoQo712CpvLJ8ogw@mail.gmail.com> <CAB0C4xOej1KhU2cA_edozG98V8ah1LgqDcu4RdwpXyQTRYRS_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3uVmiS6Xqhx_qeFEeWnBkaax5CN2Zb5yu8CeML1tzBHA@mail.gmail.com> <1384977137.17317.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1384977137.17317.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security WGLC
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, 21 Nov 2013 07:31:25 -0000

Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
>> To: Marc Lampo <marc.lampo.ietf@gmail.com> 
>> Cc: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>; "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, 20 November 2013 7:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security WGLC
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Marc Lampo <marc.lampo.ietf@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>
> With a title like "Balanced Security for IPv6 Residential CPE" it has strong overtures of being IETF recommendations.
>
> With a title like "Swisscomm's IPv6 CPE Firewalling Policy Deployment", it doesn't.
>
>
+1

Would this be better as an individual submission instead of a v6ops WG doc?

>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Regards,
RayH

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email