The Security Considerations section in draft-george-ipv6-required-01
says:
5. Security Considerations
There are no direct security considerations generated by this
document, but existing documented security considerations for
implementing IPv6 will apply.
At a minimum, you
In your previous mail you wrote:
I fear "IPsec required for IPv6" would slow deployment of IPv6.
=> IMHO it doesn't matter as the IETF has *no* way to enforce
such a thing: you can require IPv6 boxes to be blue with red points,
it will have the same effect (other to show it is ridiculous :-).
On 2011-03-30 02:42, Francis Dupont wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>I fear "IPsec required for IPv6" would slow deployment of IPv6.
We have never attempted to mandate *deployment* of IPsec.
>
> => IMHO it doesn't matter as the IETF has *no* way to enforce
> such a thing: you c
On 3/29/11 6:42 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>I fear "IPsec required for IPv6" would slow deployment of IPv6.
Simply put it's been ignored so far whenever it's convenient which
appears to be frequently. I don't see that changing and our document
series (to F
Tim,
The last rev of the IPv6 node requirements document states that IPsec
is no longer required but only recommended for IPv6:
>From http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08
Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the
key management approach of
hanks,
Wes George
-Original Message-
From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Tim Shepard
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:59 AM
To: int-area@ietf.org
Subject: [Int-area] draft-george-ipv6-required-01.txt --- what about IPsec ?
The Security Considera
George,
OK, I have now read the relevant parts of
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08 and it says what needs to be said,
quite well actually.
I do think an explicit pointer to that within the Security
Considerations section of your draft would be good.
Since the int-area meeting today I've had a
