Re: [savi] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06

I have a draft version with this correction. David, would adding: When such a move is done without changing the MAC address, the SAVI switches will need to update their state. While the ARP may be helpful, traffic detection, switch based neighbor

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On 03/28/2013 08:29 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical. For individual addresses, sure. But one of the (if not *the*) primary benefits of v4 reputation is the test of whether or not the address is in a botnet range (aka, ranges assigned to end-use

Call for volunteers for IETF ITU-T Liaison Manager for MPLS

The IAB will be appointing a liaison manager to ITU-T for MPLS within the next few weeks. We are soliciting volunteers for this position. Nominations (including self-nominations) for this position should be sent to: scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com no later t

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On Mar 29, 2013, at 9:58 AM, "John Levine" wrote: >> As a result, it is questionable whether any IPv6 address-based reputation >> system can be successful (at least those based on voluntary principles.) > > It can probably work for whitelisting well behaved senders, give or take > the DNS cach

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

>As a result, it is questionable whether any IPv6 address-based reputation >system can be successful (at least those based on voluntary principles.) It can probably work for whitelisting well behaved senders, give or take the DNS cache busting issues of IPv6 per-message lookups. Since a bad guy

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-16

The -16 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by the Gen-ART review of the -15 version. Thanks, --David > -Original Message- > From: Black, David > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:26 PM > To: s...@aaa-sec.com; mmy...@fastq.com; ambar...@gmail.com; > slava.galpe...@gmail

Re: Last Call: (Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks) to Informational RFC

Hi, My minimal request for this draft is for my name to be removed from the Acknowledgements, as I do not think that my comments have been acted on. In fact, I think that in its current state, this document is harmful to IPv6 deployment. It in effect encourage sites to fence themselves into an IP

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote: This approach works fine if one presumes that the problem is always just the customer (i.e. their ISP is actively interested in helping solve the problem.) For ISPs who are not as interested (or may have an actual motivation to hinder resolution of the

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On Mar 29, 2013, at 4:13 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > My belief is that IP address reputation has always been flakey, it's just > vastly more so with IPv6. > > What we need is a way to identify a "entity" subnet size. This work is > probably wasted on IPv4, but it's definitely needed for IP

Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Douglas Otis wrote: IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical. Since IP address reputation has been a primary method for identifying abusive sources with IPv4, imposing ineffective and flaky replacement strategies has an effect of deterring IPv6 use. My b

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

On 29/03/2013 07:33, Michael StJohns wrote: > At 01:14 AM 3/29/2013, David Kessens wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the >>> IAB and not currently subject to external revi

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

At 01:14 AM 3/29/2013, David Kessens wrote: >Mike, > >On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:03:25PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the >> IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any >> problem with that. > >I

Re: Appointment of Scott Mansfield as new IETF Liaison Manager to the ITU-T

At 10:02 AM 3/28/2013, John C Klensin wrote: > For me, it seems especially odd when >compared to the liaison position to the ICANN Board. Both are >very important to the IETF community. Both involve >organizations with which the IETF has a complicated and >multidimensional relationship. Both i