On 05/10/2017 02:12, Joe Touch wrote: > > > 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. >> > > 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.
Here's the problem, Joe. It's a fact of life that many firewalls discard a lot of stuff that they shouldn't - that's why we wrote RFC 7045 - but in the real world, operators blunder around based on folklore and vendors' defaults. We can't change any of that, but we can try to issue sensible advice that, overall, will limit the resulting breakage. IMHO this document, positioned correctly as Informational, will do that: on balance, it makes the world a better place. I agree with Bob Hinden that a careful review against RFC 8200 is essential. I already pointed out one problem (RH0) at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/StjbjvCP9PLC3ssnTKYO6jqFgk0 and Bob found a problem with Hop-by-Hop. Brian > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
