IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 DF42C12D1BD; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 JITxtTKh1tGS; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (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 D0C3012D513; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v6so50695572vkb.2; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 01:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NdREx7YlB6BhODDCDbOmliXaUXyZtPSHPxIiV9AxXrg=; b=WmWJIIoyjijXte6vTgP4BX7FODFtVrd89WDyBrvomekINkhXf1dP8EtUED124INoni MNDJEYjMgkT+N6zdjffyAnCHogeG3L8X1J77R/j5ciiud0VlU2HTTcrTi6B3v42f89Qr 53byZi9HWVHgXKgFts8l5DBDWODfny+EH5pF5psvTSC+PA1SZigBDn6QL4uAKkAaJEIz 2VgsVlxAeG9iHPeu7h0vOQQgVVlcGiSftQIhiSwrmbdhg9FJRWF6HWQQD1w+E2MPrCJ9 TzacyyH+0nqw/jeiNNnMqq3ZbwAW069V1ZnWpvo/dgyA28RXoBHsw5GgArjpYudSiwkx EMHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NdREx7YlB6BhODDCDbOmliXaUXyZtPSHPxIiV9AxXrg=; b=GyVxCcPKCvMxpIYmh+qYuhAW+1VFsnpGAigPncmKrs57dhRZVQ6sWjQOJli+wpV53E 3tmZ9LMCqhW4dIR/4+UUTIIKPNL4PO+f+FmXo9UtXj8zn2bOnewwmo2EPNGKK/JA05rL HQkEqMHTmnXcV33UI7dSNICRR3WsF1fFoYpPExP5qIqpjLQRf6E0v9uNt+uEQZwYzGuY SidzpStxTa7Eb0LgzYIm5nnQWB5RTERdnW3WohcEFzpxlx38e9uhmxv520KBTkB+uvns Zw93dP8nGzkFKKZMogQSeewG9mCJvb0PhYEIZGwc0YO4sON22S9g9vsapoNsv35+a21T DhAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLrGJpHA5NLz0bjo5R7yDJUgkgXRmadujbhwBhcY60n0sjKLTGoEdAKQOM+oZXCsN/ZniI/deQMcyOJEA==
X-Received: by 10.31.163.72 with SMTP id m69mr2182019vke.72.1467967910846; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 01:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.39.233 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxpD4FXJLBgKg2tjGz5RNBp+iFe1M2M_upL1rYDXJA7SoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D386FF93.75916%evyncke@cisco.com> <CAAedzxqBr=ApvGTUrjNUnRmpcamkt4OH1CchcDEWgDcXRgo8Fw@mail.gmail.com> <D3A3D373.77252%evyncke@cisco.com> <CAAedzxpD4FXJLBgKg2tjGz5RNBp+iFe1M2M_upL1rYDXJA7SoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 18:51:21 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xh33jiuCJ=Ypi1HuXa_h86v6XqqRT7nnirqx6da4cOZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/o2w7cv4EHEfH4xdA0meN7h3EFHU>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-v6@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-v6@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "linkedin@xn--debrn-nva.de" <linkedin@xn--debrn-nva.de>, "fgont@si6networks.com" <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:51:54 -0000

On 8 July 2016 at 18:36, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
>>>Section 2.1.2 is far too permissive for my tastes.  We need to be able
>>>to say that ULA+IPv6 NAT is NOT RECOMMENDED by the IETF.
>>
>> I changed the end of the section 2.1.2 to reflect this. Albeit, I am
>> unsure whether there is a clear statement by the IETF about not using ULA
>> + NPTv6 (and I would LOVE to see such a statement)
>
> Then please go ahead and make that statement in your document.
>
> I, for one, will help defend it.  :-)
>

Depending on an experimental RFC for your security sounds like a
really bad idea to me!

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email