Hi, Mike, My sincere
On 05/31/2015 12:34 AM, C. M. Heard wrote: > Greetings, > > The text in Section 3 seems to have dropped the step saying that if > the packet is identified to be a DHCPv6 packet meant for a DHCPv6 > client then a DHCPv6-Shield implementation MUST drop the packet. > That omission defeats the entire purpose of the draft and renders it > unsuitable for publication. You probably meant Section 5 rather than Section 3? > As noted in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/msg01870.html, > this problem was introduced in the -06 version of the draft. Could the > authors > PLEASE fix this, or else point out where in -07 this step is spelled out? Good grief! It looks like the corresponding statement was mistakenly dropped while editing the document. We've fixed the document now. Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
