Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-03

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 21 October 2017 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 06E841342F4; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JFwERtK0qqCp; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (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 44A5B134457; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b6so13233005pfh.7; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ym5D5Vok3apSahYvolDO7Q358Z9n2+MQ244FU09LyiA=; b=GMHP3JPCTIoOE3js9QT8igefaxDzMydi7agf8nUprc6U5XkMSzfvBfnm1nbCmbetvi 6W4h40MsXd28sK3JEgrIip4GwPnjEzBlx4J5wqpNRxfYitFtM7rJpxqVCk5+lm84YzVM FnB+Fa5jfZ9sDrbzf3Aia6WkwlV+hbUqMnJO+6+r8/qUMuuqWKySbPvaJ/OmgxJb5xTU OOFO0lFUjRdd4SbYCqOjM/gahkkCzh624SF5FQNYKAkLIP1cdhQuQTLfy8DUI0fthbYy po/ljyY1WzSA0SEtKncsTcdeNvKZ8ztXcjGHXOCzROV0qYZfNaUxFyqCLVHTwmrO8hJX wftw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ym5D5Vok3apSahYvolDO7Q358Z9n2+MQ244FU09LyiA=; b=mJ3fJ6VTe3kDq2NUt/OqmRBa2Za5WLKaXOQOgFXYWhHfZ8THeBk60c7QMMknEVbonL UUr/2wOpg/HQHciC1P6avZUqWCexX9QQSnBc169FEOKzERVhEgj6OZ1GoTDELm54jKh0 n5j2stHxkomfhU71z0UsO4G4NGtaLZzbmk1/V2HUaHVu5BtLsENnudhAXzeVycFLdNnd CFkbLvT+ljA5nvNUvHwfRXEJEqHZt6UQI3x2UFWXZkDrmGmGhPSSWmVH4WeSAYzRlvCH GvZtRnCAZwTGwLmsmqm5nW8yjlFChofq0BRFpwfarjM+FO9gELbDeGzOgXKW+JElVxnS P/uQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaV6AS8TyvVciM1LBlf2GoHWBhhyUFexSQVA//Mk16CfKCWMqyS4 KBHGV81tx0V1vZTg0P0N9NLU6A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QwuVp+E1FUpFySD2bdLXykfYrQTfvOW8ERB58VrTqoJK20g+C2rws0cz5Z+yzUSKr8SqkSYg==
X-Received: by 10.84.217.30 with SMTP id o30mr5254736pli.351.1508545806287; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6d3c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6d3c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f10sm2879448pgr.8.2017.10.20.17.30.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <8C3BB7BE-4E84-4D44-8DA9-BBE80EA51752@nokia.com> <2C2BE7A7-C885-4B38-ADA4-B29EADEED387@gmail.com> <91dcdfa8-a4fd-c2b4-9371-defa2b24c551@si6networks.com> <66b597b7-a6ce-3f1a-5fd2-ccae882ca667@gmail.com> <CAG6TeAtHC02UCrYULcehyQ6sGz3T=A446fyu_2o31ncqtLUjcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <10b05f36-23e1-10f9-c602-c62ec287ac3b@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:30:12 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG6TeAtHC02UCrYULcehyQ6sGz3T=A446fyu_2o31ncqtLUjcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_Te9KiUJD0UYC325o0X3JDMHvos>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-03
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:30:16 -0000

On 21/10/2017 12:36, Fernando Gont wrote:
> (sorry for top-posting)
> 
> I meant: everywhere there's diverging behaviour between rfc2460 and
> rfc8200, note both behaviors.
> 
> We can center discussion on rfc8200, and make refs to rfc2460 look like
> "notes" (e.g., "rrc2470 used to blah blah...').

Exactly right. I think that I already proposed text in that spirit
for the RH0 case.

   Brian

> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> Fernando
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El 20 oct. 2017 4:42 p. m., "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> escribió:
> 
>> On 20/10/2017 22:53, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> Hello, Bob,
>>>
>>> On 10/04/2017 06:38 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I also don’t think this is ready for a w.g. last call.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn’t reference the new version of the IPv6 specification
>>>> RFC8200.  There were a number of clarifications in RFC8200 regarding
>>>> extension headers that may require changes in the draft.
>>>
>>> We talked a bit about this. Best option seems to be to keep the current
>>> text and add text regarding the changes in RFC8200 -- at the end of th
>>> day, an operator will have to deal with both RFC2460 and RFC8200
>>> implementations.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I don't think that is 100% right. Yes, of course add a general note at
>> the front stating that the current standard is 8200 but that many
>> implementations were based on 2460. But then, change all the references
>> to 8200 and add text where there is an actual difference between the
>> two cases. So far I think two have been pointed out:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/StjbjvCP9PLC3ssnTKYO6jqFgk0
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/9FigBATRkVHAurXv3aNNR-Z46JU
>> but there may be others.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>>
>