Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

On 3/19/10 11:09 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>    
>> So I want to say: let's not add *anything*. Let's just push it out in a matter of weeks.
>>      
> I'm currently sitting on a couple of minor edits:
>
> + Cite RFC 4007 to clear up confusion about multicast group scope boundaries.
> + Fix some inconsistencies between cpe-simple-security and RFC 4890.
>
> I'm planning to post the -10 revision tonight, then start revising my slides for Monday morning.  We shall see if there is a rough consensus for sending the -10 revision up the stack in the days following the meeting, or if further wrangling over it in the working group is in order.
>    
Wish I could be at the meeting next week to make my points there, but if 
I was I would be asking for something along the lines of this:

Section 2.3, first paragraph:

s/not forwarded into the/rate-limited or discarded before reaching the

And a new sentence like this:

Rate-limiting unsolicited inbound connections rather than rejecting them 
provides greater end-to-end transparency while still providing 
protection against address and port scanning attacks as well as 
overloading of slow links or devices within the home.

Thanks,

- Mark

PS. I have some other clarification suggestions and questions to ask 
about text I read while reviewing today. I'll wait for -10 before 
posting these.

>
> --
> james woodyatt<[e-mail]>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
>
>
>