On 2004-09-23, Pekka Savola wrote: > > 5. Security Considerations > > Further work will be required to integrate Optimistic DAD with Secure > Neighbor Discovery [SEND]. > > ==> sorry for not saying this earlier, but this seems unacceptable to > me. SEND specs are already in the RFC-ed queue, and the WG has been > closed. This IMHO needs to be analyzed here. I.e., analyze and state > how oDAD interacts (or not) with SEND. AFAICS, there shouldn't be any > showstoppers here..
Okay, I can see that. I guess SEND ran past me while I wasn't looking :-) Would any of the ex-SEND-ites be able to help me out by reading the draft and suggesting a short bit of text -- as far as I can tell OptiDAD-02 and SEND-CGA "just works", because version -02 no longer says anything about how addresses are generated. But are there any other SEND messages sent at address configuration time which might cause harm in the case of an address collision? > ==> s/::/the unspecified address/ (clearer when used in braces) > ==> s/dependant/dependent/ No worries. > [MIPV6] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, J. Arkko. Mobility Support in IPv6, > revision 24 (draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24). June 2003 ... > Expired December 2003. > > ==> now RFC. Argh! I was sure I'd fixed that one! Thanks, -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
