Dear all, I have read draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier-03 and believe the security implications discussed and the suggestions for updating the two RFCs are essential for security considerations, and the operational mitigations proposed in the document provide good choices for design. I support the adoption of this document as a WG document.
Thank you, Tina On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:47 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 2013-08-23 09:55, Ole Troan a écrit : >> This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on adopting: >> >> Title : Security Implications of IPv6 Options of Type 10xxxxxx >> Author(s) : F. Gont, W. Liu >> Filename : draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier-03 >> Pages : 12 >> Date : 2013-03-21 >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier-03 >> >> The call ends on August 30th, 2013. > > For adoption. > > I had commented on this draft earlier. I just read it again and still > find it useful. I think we should simplify the recommendations and just > never send Parameter Problem errors to multicast addresses. That's how > it's going to be implemented in practice anyway. > > By the way, there seems to be an editing mistake on page 6, item (e.3) > is repeated. > > Simon > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
