IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 28 April 2009 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7586B3A6FC8 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.385
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.890, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ed2cfpBv7voV for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AFB3A6D7F for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1LysmD-0002lG-VQ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:33 +0000
Received: from [171.68.10.87] (helo=sj-iport-5.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <fred@cisco.com>) id 1Lysm1-0002kC-4b for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:27 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,261,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="73717300"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2009 19:15:20 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3SJFK75024747; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:15:20 -0700
Received: from dhcp-171-70-228-116.cisco.com (dhcp-171-70-228-116.cisco.com [171.70.228.116]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3SJFKST022456; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:20 GMT
Cc: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <D2282647-6540-4260-9F9F-7D4C96D19086@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <1BE2A566-6D18-4154-886E-E93AC09B4FC8@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 WGLC
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:15:19 -0700
References: <32129337-7BED-4D7A-AF06-BC5ABB37D994@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C05DC3@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <016701c9c506$97ff5ae0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2C964DF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <49F7182C.5000407@bogus.com> <1BE2A566-6D18-4154-886E-E93AC09B4FC8@apple.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=734; t=1240946120; x=1241810120; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 =20WGLC |Sender:=20; bh=Jp2d08PoF6oZXPM4loFXhZt95/799lbJEoTyV1gGcFs=; b=JtG+AJPSTrU0zwiwD5J1XFg9lvqpJFnRcj7ptZf00k1SEs7qHUFwtYe1Jn /hAu1EPpmQYYwWRNfdSXapJ86h0LB7mcgERVemA35HpZZAB6ZXLU0nvBqk9K 7mpIywy825;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

in this context, I think copying IPv4 expectations is reasonable. They  
are, after all, not really IPv4 expectations - they are how IPv4  
systems are implemented having observed transports and applications  
that could ride on either. Those applications and transports won't  
complain about having longer timeouts from IPv6, but they're not  
likely to benefit much either, IMHO.

On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:34 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
> So, can the working group give me a more reasonable number to use in  
> the -06 revision I'm composing today?  Otherwise, I'll just increase  
> it from two to four minutes, and we'll revisit in -07 if necessary.

I would suggest leaving it the same and referencing the source RFC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email