Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsec-v6-26: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-v6/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, I would like to thank the authors for persevering with this document that has been in development for a long time. I was also like to thank Tim for his detailed OPSDIR reviews. I found the document informative to read, but in terms of the technical content, I don't have anything further to add beyond the other reviews comments. My overriding impression from reading this document (both due to the text and large number of references) is that deploying IPv6 seems to be very complex. I don't know how that complexity compares to v4 deployments. In several cases, this document alludes to different alternatives to how particular IPv6 features may be deployed, and the operational security considerations as they pertain to those choices. Not for this document, but it makes me wonder whether some useful future work in this area might be some BCP recommendations for how IPv6 should be deployed in particular types of networks .. although it is entirely possible that ship has already sailed, or there is too much variation on how v6 is being deployed to make such a recommendation. Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
