James, Thank you for the review.
> 1) Much of what is in the Section 11.1 seems a summary of > RFC 3756. On the > one hand, I suppose it is helpful to refresh the reader's > memory, on the > other, it could shorten the spec and make for less reading. > It's just a > stylistic issue. => ok. > 2) Regarding in Section 11.1 last paragraph: > > many of the threats discussed in this section are less > effective, or non-existent, on point-to-point links, or cellular > links where hosts share links with one neighbor, i.e. the default > router. > > I thought 2461 explicitly did not apply to point to point links or > point-to-point like links such as cellphones, and other > links that were NBMA > (speaking of which, I suppose the actual NBMA technology has > been worked out > by now, so the statement in Section 1 paragraph 2 about NBMA > being FFS might > be obsolete and, if so, could be replaced by a reference to > the RFC where > that is described). => I'm not aware of restrictions for ND on cellular links. For instance, RFCs 3314 and 3316 talk about address config and ND on 3GPP links, which are a good example of those point to point-like links. Sure there is no multicast capability but ND works fine. Hesham > > The discussion of IPsec in Section 11.2 looks fine. > > jak > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:48 AM > Subject: [rfc2461bis] Security issues > > > Folks, > > I'm formally addressing the issues left for 2461bis. > All the issues were either resolved or agreed on in > the meeting. The next series of emails are to inform > the list about the resolutions that we already agreed > on and see if there are any comments before I close the > issues. > > The security issues were regarding: > - Use of IPsec > - Relation to SEND > > The current draft includes the following: > > - Removed suggestions for using IPsec to secure ND > - A discussion on IPsec and when it might be useful > - Expanded the security considerations section to include > more threats and pros and cons of using IPsec > - Referenced threats and solutions drafts in SEND. > > Please read the current draft, in particular sections > 3.3 and 11 to see all the changes. If there are no > objections I'll close this issue. > > Hesham > > =========================================================== > This email may contain confidential and privileged material > for the sole use > of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is > strictly > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please > contact the > sender > and delete all copies. > =========================================================== > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
