Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-13

Thank you David. On 7/5/15 7:36 AM, Black, David wrote: > This is a combined Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review. Boilerplate for both follows > ... > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at: > >

Re: [Gen-art] [dhcwg] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-13

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:50 AM, joel jaeggli wrote > ... > [5] Section 5: > >Fake >DHCP servers / fake RAs are currently a security concern - this >doesn't make them any better or worse. > > Please cite a reference for this, preferably with operational > recommendations on limi

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-13

On Saturday, July 11, 2015, Christian Huitema wrote: > > On Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:50 AM, joel jaeggli wrote > > > ... > > [5] Section 5: > > > >Fake > >DHCP servers / fake RAs are currently a security concern - this > >doesn't make them any better or worse. > > > > Please cite a r

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-13

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 1:13 PM, Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] wrote > On Saturday, July 11, 2015, Christian Huitema wrote: > >> There is definitely an attack vector there. Suppose an attacker can monitor >> the traffic, say on an >> unencrypted Wi-Fi hot spot. The attacker can se