On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> > Le 2015-02-09 à 09:30, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> a écrit :
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:21 PM, C. M. Heard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Would your objections be addressed if Section 3 of the draft were
> >> replaced by something along the lines of the following?
> >
> > No. This is not a draft about filtering extension headers. It
> > is a draft about filtering DHCP. The two are unrelated, and
> > should not be discussed as if they were related.
>
> I agree with Tedÿÿs point above. The draft is about dhcpv6 not extension
> headers.
Yes, but there is a situation in which it is not possibile to make a
positive identification where a given packet is or is not a DHCPv6
packet. This should be pointed out to implementors, and the
relevant requirements from RFC 7045 should be noted.
I think I've made it amply clear that I disagree with the DISCUSS as
it is currently written. I will now shut up and let others speak.
//cmh
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
