Dear Suresh, Having the warnings in the draft is good but having a pointer to a document including a fair and detailed risk analysis is also valuable and worth to be acknowledged.
Having that pointer is an "invitation" to people who will deploy this mechanism (I know some of them who are planning to) to assess the validity of the claimed threats (and also to consider the alternatives listed in Section 3 of draft-dec-*). This is even encouraged given the intended track: "experimental". Thanks. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com] >Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 22:14 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >Cc : i...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org; DUREL Sophie OLNC/NAD/TIP >Objet : Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-lineid-05.txt> (The >Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC > >Hi Med, > >On 06/06/2012 08:04 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >> Dear Suresh, all, >> >> Even if the document includes several warnings about the >unreliability of an RS-based mechanism, I suggest to add a >pointer to the following document: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful-00. > >Is there something in particular that you think is missing from the >lineid draft? The current warning text in lineid (and the >reclassification to experimental) was arrived at after consultations >with the the 6man chairs and the author of draft-dec. > >Thanks >Suresh > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
