Hi Joe,
Good to hear from you again! It’s been a while.
I have to disagree with your first statement. The document really is intended
to be operational advice and nothing more. I know that because that really was
our intent when we wrote the paragraph.
However, I suspect that you objections are much deeper and probably require a
wider bandwidth conversation. Let’s chat later this week.
Ron
\
no hats
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:12 AM
To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-03
On 9/29/2017 1:12 AM, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
This is to open a two week WGLC for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-03<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dopsec-2Dipv6-2Deh-2Dfiltering-2D03&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=w6ehR6tEWxWsAi6UqKPaO2-vlDr5WraZcRu4dMv8o90&s=FbWJlslQstgnVnyNGdY5995KFRwCx4RDtIBQPrOAdj8&e=>.
I do not agree with the claims of this document. It "informationally" advises
against support for key IPv6 capabilities and undermines the extensibility of
IPv6 by making recommendations about discarding currently unassigned codepoints.
This is an overstep for an OPS group, IMO.
Additionally, it refers to RFC2119 without taking care to capitalize those
keywords where used or to provide specific examples where recommendations
contradict existing Internet standards or are not definitive (e.g., SHOULDs).
I don't think this document is ready in any way.
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
