Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 30 January 2015 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B94C1A9050 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:25:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 aClaKf33H1Pl for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEC961A904D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 278E6C090D; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:25:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.56]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0123D158059; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:25:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.231]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.56]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:25:03 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Thread-Index: AQHQOxuJv5W9vu3skUKiVKZnDa9kKZzXWAcAgACD64CAAMlUAIAAF8PwgAANrZA=
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:25:02 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902B03@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <B7D61F30-BAC4-4BE0-A5FD-1D4BD4652E55@employees.org> <CADhXe52bTnPXz3H6kxscKSsutd-ZKx-TCTP2sh=YdbeerArT3g@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902567@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F0D3B0@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F0D3B0@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.12.16.134821
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rgVhFUX7CMVqe62lZ8RWF_NAxk8>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 30 Jan 2015 15:25:08 -0000

Hi Barbara,

Thank you for the comment.

I'm planning to put back that text if there is no objection from the WG. 

As per RFC7084, we didn't included it because it included some IPv4 continuity service features that are not valid for the mobile context. The document already mentions the following: 

                "Note, even if RFC7084 obsoletes [RFC6204], this profile
                does not require RFC7084 because IPv4 service continuity
                techniques used in mobile networks are not the same as
                in fixed networks."

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : STARK, BARBARA H [mailto:bs7652@att.com] 
Envoyé : vendredi 30 janvier 2015 16:18
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; James Woodyatt
Cc : IPv6 Ops WG
Objet : RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

Proposed text from James:
> In the case of cellular devices that provide LAN features, compliance with L_REC#2 entails compliance with RFC 6204, which in turn recommends compliance with Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service [RFC6092]. Therefore, the security considerations in section 6 of that document are relevant. In particular, it bears repeating here that the true impact of stateful filtering may be a reduction in security, and that IETF make no statement, expressed or implied, as to whether using the capabilities described in any of these documents ultimately improves security for any individual users or for the Internet community as a whole.
--

FYI. RFC 6204 (in James’ proposed text above) was obsoleted by RFC 7084. If this text is to be included, that should be changed.

I would also like to see some of the removed text (referring to discussion around some of Lorenzo's comments) put back.
Barbara