On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joe Touch wrote: > On 10/13/2014 1:47 PM, C. M. Heard wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Joe Touch wrote: > >> On 10/13/2014 12:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> ... > >>> Exactly. I believe this draft, and the options draft, are *exactly* what > >>> the IETF should do (and why we have an E in our name instead of an S; > >>> we are not the Internet Standards Task Force). If our standards are > >>> unrealistic, we should be the ones to do something about it... > >> > >> If it's that our standards are unrealistic, it would be useful to > >> address this as changes to the standards. > > > > That's what RFC 7045 does; it has "Updates: 2460, 2780" on its front > > page. Similarly, draft-gont-6man-ipv6-opt-transmit (the options > > draft referred to above) has "Updates: 2460 (if approved)" in its > > front page. > > Right, but it's not what either this doc > (draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering) or > draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world does. > > I've raised this issue before.
If I correctly understand the intent, draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering is not supposed to make any recommendations that contravene RFC 2460 as updated by RFC 7045 and draft-gont-6man-ipv6-opt-transmit. If you see something specific where it does so please point it out. I didn't find anything like that when I reviewed the document. //cmh _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
