Erik Thanks for you review (and BTW, I am out of steam/time to process more comments on this thread before posting the -09 => I will process _ALL_ comments later)
-éric On 15/06/16 21:45, "Erik Kline" <[email protected]> wrote: >Section 2.1.2 is far too permissive for my tastes. We need to be able >to say that ULA+IPv6 NAT is NOT RECOMMENDED by the IETF. I changed the end of the section 2.1.2 to reflect this. Albeit, I am unsure whether there is a clear statement by the IETF about not using ULA + NPTv6 (and I would LOVE to see such a statement) > >Section 2.6.1.5 could punch up the SAVI stuff a bit more as well. We >should, in my opinion, make it painfully clear that DHCP (of any >protocol) in the absence of link-layer security/auditability features >does not provide any satisfactory way "to ensure audibility and >traceability" [Section 2.1.6]. Done > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
