Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
One of our charter items is to produce updates of RFC 2461 and 2462 in order to progress them to Draft Standard. As a part of that effort, I would like to bring to the Work Group's attention, some work that has been done in SEND.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-send-psreq-03.txt outlines several security issues that exist in NDP and in Stateless Autonconfiguration. So as a part of the effort to revise 2461 and 2462, I am soliciting the WG's thoughts on how to incorporate the work done in the SEND document into the base specifications. My primary goal is to come to a balance of existing functionality vs. enhanced security capability.
The SEND work is not the only thing which has proposed (or uncovered a potential need for) modifications ini RFC2461/2462. Some requests have surfaced already in the Mobile IP space as well.
Agreed. My point was more to make the WG aware of the issues raised in the SEND document. The issues raised in other places (e.g. MIPv6) are just as important.
I'd encourage you to go through the archives. There has been a significant amount of discussion on many ambiguous pieces of the spec (e.g. dead code in RFC2462 section 5.5.3 e, ambiguities about decrementing the Lifetime counters, etc.). I'd hope that someone (e.g. one of the original authors) would have archived the relevant threads for later perusal.
In addition, draft-roy-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt (will be updated soon to v6ops WG document) has identified a set of serious problems with the "on-link by default" rule. Expect a companion document describing the tradeoffs of changing RFC2461/2 in this regard shortly.
Great. I will look for its publication.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
