Hi Eric,
Thanks for considering my previous inputs.
However, I think it is still important to remark the different implications of
MAP-T vs MAP-E and also consider lw4o6.
Same for the implications of not having a DNS proxy in some transition
mechanism, as stated in RFC8585.
Also, in section 5. Residential Users Security Considerations
Replace
If the Residential Gateway has IPv6 connectivity, [RFC7084] defines
the requirements of an IPv6 CPE and does not take position on the
debate of default IPv6 security policy as defined in [RFC6092]:
with
If the Residential Gateway has IPv6 connectivity, [RFC7084] and [RFC8585]
define the requirements of an IPv6 CPE and does not take position on the
debate of default IPv6 security policy as defined in [RFC6092]:
I think in this section, it makes sense a reference to Section 5. UPnP
Support of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas, which also includes a reference
to PCP support.
Does it make sense to mention a specific operator or should this paragraph be
anonymized?
There is also an alternate solution which has been deployed notably
by Swisscom: open to all outbound and inbound connections at the
exception of an handful of TCP and UDP ports known as vulnerable.
In any case "an handful" -> "a handful"?
Some nits:
2.1.1 more feasable -> more feasible ?
2.7.2 some bullets finish with ";" others with "."
3.2 Missing ending "." for paragraph at the end of "provided in Section 2.8"
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 17/7/19 4:25, "OPSEC en nombre de Eric Vyncke (evyncke)"
<[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió:
Jen, Ron,
As co-author of the document, the latest -17 revision dated 2019-07-05
addresses (at least from the authors point of view):
- the comments received during the WG meeting at IETF-104
- the OPSDIR review by Tim Chown dated 2018-07-02
- the WGLC ended in 2017-09-29
The state of the document in the datatracker is still "Revised I-D Needed -
Issue raised by WGLC" since 2017-09-29 though. As I was co-chair at that point
of time, I should have reset the state to a more suitable one... Would you mind
resetting the state to a more suitable one?
Note: I have requested a slot to present this work at V6OPS
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/agenda-105-v6ops-03
With all the reviews and the updates, may I kindly suggest, if the WG
chairs and members agree, to request publication? Happy to talk to you in
Montreal of course.
Thank you for considering this request,
-éric
On 06/07/2019, 18:43, "OPSEC on behalf of Enno Rey"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Dear WG Chairs, All,
we've considered & mostly incorporated the input from the mailing list
(thanks for the latest reviews and comments!) and from the IETF104 session, and
we'd hence like to ask for WGLC of the document.
thanks
Enno
--
Enno Rey
ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902
Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Florian Grunow, Michael Schaefer
=======================================================
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
=======================================================
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
