Ran,
I am troubled by the apparent decision to ignore legitimate
operational security considerations (e.g. about covert channels)
We should certainly mention the covert channels issue in the
security considerations of 3697bis.
and also the apparent decision to write these documents
in a
On 03 May 2011, at 17:58 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
and also the apparent decision to write these documents
in a manner intended to legislate reasonable security measures
(if applicable only in selected deployments) out of existence.
I don't understand this comment. The flow label has
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Flow label drafts updated
and also the apparent decision to write these documents in a manner
intended to legislate reasonable security measures (if
I'm on the fence with regards to this document. if this document is meant to be
the RFC1122/1812 document for IPv6,
I think we are too early in the deployment of IPv6 to have gathered enough
experience with what works and what doesn't.
as a profile of an IPv6 node though, it isn't too far off.
I agree with Bob. Also, the world is a bit different than in 1989 and 1995.
There are a lot of organizations creating different IPv6 'profiles',
'certifications' and guidelines. I think it has always been our intention to
use the Node Requirements to provide some guidelines from the IETF
A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations
Author(s) : G. Fairhurst, et al
Filename :
+1
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:48 AM, George, Wes E [NTK]
wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com wrote:
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian
E Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Flow label drafts updated
and also the apparent decision to
