Pekka Savola wrote:
Wording could be enhanced, but I do not think this document should be blocked by the missing SEND details.
Well, what we can discuss is whether there needs to be some SEND support before the document can go forward. But there's actually three issues in the SEND support: o Sufficiently clear documentation that this does not work with SEND. Personally, I found the security considerations section lacking in this respect. The tracker seems to indicate the section was not clear to others either. Suggested text sent to the authors. o There may be a need to specify or at least explain how this works in a SEND mixed mode scenario; ideally we'd like to downgrade (not just fail) to plain old ND if SEND doesn't work through this. It appears that this can be made to work, but it would be very useful to document this. This does not require much effort, and again, text has already been sent to the authors. o Whether we actually want to define a secure approach to proxies. Here I'd personally be OK even with no security for proxying, as long as the above issues were corrected. But you could also argue the other way; the IETF usually does require mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms to go with its protocols. --Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
