Joel, Warren (as shepherd), In addition to some responses below, it appears that my review comments sent to opsec are yet to be addressed: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/msg01477.html "The only remaining bit is the issue raised by Carlos which we'll hopefully address in the next rev." http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/msg01447.html
It seems the remaining bit is still remaining. Frankly, I am still concerned that this doc still refers to "VPN Leakages" while its applicability and scope is a small subset of "VPNs". More inline. On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:57 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I hope that you folks are recovering well from IETF meeting related > excesses and accompanying travel. > > Some questions came up in the IESG review of the document that are more > appropriately answered by the working group rather than by me attempting > to channel you folks. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages/ > > 1. Does the working-group view view disabling IPV6 in deployed equipment > due to operational necessity as a desirable outcome. My personal view is "No". That would be a step backwards in deploying IPv6. > > 2. Does the working-group characterize the problem of vpn leakages > captured in this document as being distinct from the problems posed by > split-tunnels in general. > I do not think it is different. Rather, this is one instantiation of a more general problem. Thanks, -- Carlos. > Your thoughts would be appreciated. > joel > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
