Section 3.4.2.5 contradicts section 3.3 on handling of unknown RHT’s. Section 3.4.2.5 contradicts section 3.4.2.4 assessment of operational impact.
It appears to me that 3.4.3.5 should state: Intermediate systems should discard packets containing a RHT0 or RHT1. Other routing header types should be permitted. Darren > On May 29, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Sent to OPSEC, 6MAN and V6OPS mailing list] > > As discussed at our last OSPEC WG meeting, this is to open a two-week WGLC > for: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering/ > > If you have not read it, please do so now. You may send nits to the author, > but substantive discussion should go to the [email protected] list. > > (While V6OPS & 6MAN WG are in cc because of close alignment with the WG > expertise area, may we ask to send feedback and comments in the OPSEC WG ?) > > We will close the call on 12 June 2018. > > Best regards, > > -éric & -ron (OPSEC WG co-chairs) > > On 29/05/18 16:21, "IETF Secretariat" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering has been changed to > "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Éric Vyncke: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering/ > > Comment: > The consensus at IETF-101 meeting was that the document is ready for WGLC. > So, let's open a 2-week WGLC. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
