Thanks for your review, Russ. Is there a new version coming up?

Jari

On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi, Russ,
> 
> Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my comments in-line...
> 
> On 02/14/2014 02:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> 
>> Summary:  The document is almost ready for publication as a
>> informational RFC.  I raise minor concerns that should be resolved
>> before IESG evaluation.
>> 
>> Major Concern:
>> 
>> In my review of -02, I said:
>>> 
>>> This document is about encrypted tunnels, and I am asking for this to
>>> be stated very early in the document.  Sadly, the IETF uses VPN to mean
>>> two very different things, please tell the reader which one is being
>>> discussed in the abstract and the introduction of the document.  IPsec
>>> and L3VPN demonstrate the two very different meanings for VPN, and
>>> "VPN leakage" has meaning in both of them.
>> 
>> I think it could be much more clear from the very beginning.
>> To this end I propose some alternate Abstract text:
>> 
>>   The subtle way in which the IPv6 and IPv4 protocols co-exist in
>>   typical networks, together with the lack of proper IPv6 support in
>>   popular Virtual Private Network (VPN) products, may inadvertently
>>   result in VPN traffic leaks.  That is, traffic meant to be
>>   transferred over an encrypted and integrity protected VPN connection
>>   may instead be transferred in the clear.  This document discusses
>>   some scenarios in which such VPN leakages may occur, either as a
>>   side effect of enabling IPv6 on a local network, or as a result of a
>>   deliberate act by a local attacker.  Additionally, this document
>>   offers possible mitigations for this issue.
> 
> Will do. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
>> Personal Observation:
>> 
>> I do not find this document very helpful.  It can be summarized as:
>> 
>>   If IPv6 is not supported in your VPN software, then disable IPv6
>>   support in all network interfaces before you try to use it.
>> 
>> I do not know why the OPSEC WG thinks that this message is worthy of
>> an RFC.
> 
> While I cannot speak for the opsec wg myself, my understanding is that
> this document serves at these goals:
> 
> * Raising awareness among VPN users
> 
> * Suggesting workarounds to VPN users
> 
> * Raising awareness among vendors -- some of them have implemented
> patches in response to this document.
> 
> * Briefly describing some tricky issues that might bite implementations.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [email protected]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to