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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 23:47 UTC

Subject: Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B11D89CB-19EB-46B8-9796-3C542BBEBB54@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:46:31 -0800
Cc: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C8A52100-BE24-4D86-9C6A-3ED1417391C3@cisco.com>
References: <D6F5ACD2-EB43-477E-9F48-AC3EDB3F7EB4@apple.com> <0E826480-B510-4907-9F38-6119C0D7523B@cisco.com> <B11D89CB-19EB-46B8-9796-3C542BBEBB54@apple.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

I'd be willing to do a last call. There was no discussion in Hiroshima, and the discussion in Stockholm left you muttering under your breath. Are you *ready* for a last call?

I would suggest that we have a f2f discussion in Anaheim and decide this then.

On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:36 PM, james woodyatt wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:25, Mark Baugher wrote:
>> 
>> 1. Rec-2.  Why not site-scope?
> 
> Because the subscriber and the provider are not the same organization, and we recommend that CPE routers enforce the organization-local scope boundary to protect subscriber's interior multicast routing up to the organization-local scope level, not just the site-local scope level.  This permits a subscriber to, for example, divide their interior network into multiple site-local multicast routing domains, each with potentially multiple links.
> 
>> 2. Rec-42.  Pardon me if I'm being dense, but what are you saying here?  That service providers cannot manage the device from an exterior interface?
> 
> No.  Only that the DEFAULT configuration of subscriber managed gateways is that service providers aren't offered a management interface.  If subscribers are issued provider managed gateways, or they explicitly change the DEFAULT configuration of their subscriber managed gateways, then service providers can manage them.
> 
>> There are many SHOULDs and some should be MUSTs.  I have a long list of nits and such.  I'll send the markups directly to you, James.  Is this Last Call or is this going into Last Call soon?
> 
> The chairs have not made a Last Call.  I'm trying to surface objections before I ask the chairs to issue a Last Call on Sunday evening.
> 
> 
> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
> 
> 
> 

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
RE: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Fwd: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP… Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Shane Amante
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Cameron Byrne
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Gert Doering
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Status of RFC 4864 (was Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-si… Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter