On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Pekka, it's been a while, but my recollection is that we (the authors) > didn't agree and didn't see any support for your comments on the list. > > I could be wrong.
There was no opposition, and there was support for at least referencing the SL-IMPACT work (or something else, giving a fuller description of SL problems). On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Christian Huitema wrote: > Actually, the 01 draft includes two changes to address Pekka's feedback: > add some explanatory text in section 2.2, address leak, and section 2.3, > routing pain; and in section 5, qualify that the replacement of site > local is only as secure if blocking rules are actually implemented at > site boundaries. But it is clear that we want to keep the document short > and concise, and thus chose to not widely expand the text in section 2 > and 5. Yes, I noticed that some (most?) changes were incorporated, but at least the above (which I believe was important, and had some support) wasn't. Of course the question then would be would the doc be normative or informative. The former could block the document unless SL-IMPACT is published soon. As there is already enough description of the issues, informational would probably be close to the mark.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
