+1 It seems the document summarizes a lot of the ND operation that is defined in other RFCs. I understand that the need to be summarized for the purpose of the doc, but I think there is too much details for already defined concepts. It would be better to only go to the detailed needed for the purpose of the doc.
Also, I too have a concern about the overlap between draft-gont-opsec-nd-security and RFC3756. It seems draft-gont-opsec-nd-security adds scenarios of specific attacks that could be deployed using Threats that are also covered in RFC3756. I am not sure if this justifies for a new draft, but if it does it would be better to make clear the doc tries to explain possible outcomes of exploiting certain protocol issues. Rgs, Panos From: opsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hosnieh Rafiee Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:19 AM To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve); opsec@ietf.org Cc: 'Tim Chown'; k...@merike.com; jeanmichel.com...@orange.com Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [Reminder] review of draft-gont-opsec-nd-security Just a general comment. I think there is no need to repeat the security vulnerabilities that is explained in RFC 3756 and better that the document just cover what is not mentioned in that document http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3756.txt . Thanks, Hosnieh From: opsec-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2013 13:38 To: opsec@ietf.org<mailto:opsec@ietf.org> Cc: Tim Chown (t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>); k...@merike.com<mailto:k...@merike.com>; jeanmichel.com...@orange.com<mailto:jeanmichel.com...@orange.com> Subject: [OPSEC] [Reminder] review of draft-gont-opsec-nd-security Folks, Please send your reviews of draft-gont-opsec-nd-security to the OPSEC WG list. Kind Regards, G/
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
