FYI, Ben Campbell's GEN-ART review raised the following minor issue, which
resulted in the only DISCUSS on the document:
Minor issues:
-- security considerations, 1st paragraph: This document has no
direct impact on Internet infrastructure security.
Can source and/or destination address
Thanks for the review.
Making the changes for -06 now, responses below...
Carsten Bormann writes:
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 1:01 PM
To: apps-disc...@ietf.org application-layer protocols; draft-ietf-6man-
rfc3484bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG; 6...@ietf.org
Subject: APPSDIR review of
Folks,
We have published a new Internet-Draft entitled Current issues with DNS
Configuration Options for SLAAC. This draft if meant to address the
SLAAC DNS configuration issues raised by Pavel on this mailing-list, and
also discusses other potential issues.
The I-D is available at:
Folks,
Since there's an ongoing poll for adoption of
draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers, I just wanted to comment on the
results of some recent tests with real-world implementations.
IPv6 implementations such as that in *BSDs silently ignore NS and NA
messages that employ fragmentation. This
Hi, Ole,
I'd like slots for presenting the following I-Ds:
* draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues
(The topic has been discussed on list)
* draft-gont-6man-managing-slaac-policy
(This one was assigned a slot at the Paris IETF, but we ran out of time,
and hence I couldn't present it)
*
I also stongly support to adopt this draft as a WG-document.
Cheers,
Dominik Elsbroek
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dave Hart daveh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a
6MAN WG document.
Dave Hart
I also stongly support to adopt this draft as a WG-document.
Cheers,
Dominik Elsbroek
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dave Hart daveh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a
6MAN WG document.
Dave Hart
I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as
a 6MAN WG document.
+1
Kind regards,
Dominik Elsbroek
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
Greetings,
RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines subnet-local (0x03) multicast scope, but
later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved.
Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one?
I ask in the context of e.g.
On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
Greetings,
RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines subnet-local (0x03) multicast scope, but
later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved.
Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one?
I ask in the context of e.g.
Support.
/as
On 13 Jun 2012, at 09:32, Ole Trøan wrote:
All,
This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting
Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension Headers
with IPv6
Neighbor Discovery
Author(s) : F. Gont
Filename :
+1 too.
-Vishwas
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Dominik Elsbroek
dominik.elsbr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as
a 6MAN WG document.
+1
Kind regards,
Dominik Elsbroek
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote:
On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
Greetings,
RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines subnet-local (0x03) multicast scope, but
later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved.
Can I ask if the later
Dave Thaler and I are exchanging e-mail about this very topic.
According to Dave, scope 3 was assigned for subnet-scoped multicast, to
accommodate multi-link subnets. Then the IPng WG decided multi-link subnets is
a bad idea and Dave wrote RFC 4903. One of the side-effects was to relabel
Hi Chairs,
On 06/13/2012 08:29 AM, Ole Trøan wrote:
All,
This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting
Title : Security and Interoperability Implications of Oversized IPv6
Header
Chains
Author(s) : F. Gont, V. Manral
Filename :
15 matches
Mail list logo
