Hi Fernando, I am not sure that is within scope. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6-04 covers many of the IPv6 issues and concerns that someone would need to evaluate its vendors against.
Why don't we write a doc on IPv4, as CB mentioned? Why not one for application firewalls? Why not one for security features at L2 all products should support. I am not sure such mandates fall under OPSECs goals or are practical to write since requirements and concerns always change based on case and network design. Just my thoughts. Panos -----Original Message----- From: OPSEC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:09 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: [OPSEC] IPv6 firewalls reqs: Rationale Folks, As noted in my previous email, this is a request to discuss the first item listed in my previous email: 1) Agree on a rationale to write this spec. For example, one possible rationale is "aim at providing parity of features with IPv4". Another one could be that "should should aim a little higher". For example, in the light of draft-farrell-perpass-attack we may aim at requiring some privacy features that might not be that common in IPv4 firewalls. Thoughts? Yours, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
