Pekka Savola wrote: ... > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savola-ngtrans-6to4-security-00.txt > > > > (by the way, comments would be welcome ;-) ... > > > Your discussion about what should not happen are already in RFC 3056 > > security issues. > > Some are, some aren't. But the main point was, that RFC 3056 rules were a > little abstract (and as a matter of fact, wrong in one sentence), so that > they were basically unimplementable and rather non-understandable. This > is noted in the introduction.
There's no harm in an informational document making the RFC 3056 security rules more explicit, although the details are certainly implementation dependent. However, I can't find in your draft a clear reference to the sentence in 3056 that you believe is wrong. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
