The document (version -06, expired 2019-01-03) is unchanged since last year's IETF last call that started in November 2018. That version drew a lot of substantive comments that have not been addressed (see thread starting at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KKyXXrvHa5r5mNcqlu_CbkktQmY). Isn't a WGLC without any discussion of these issues (not even to dismiss them) somewhat premature? Would it not be more appropriate to comb through the last call threads, extract the substantive comments, and make a considered decision what to do about each, possibly after submitting a new version without changes to un-expire the document?
As a reminder, one of the substantive objections raised was that the document recommends blanket discarding of unknown next header values, violating RFC 7045. Expect this to come up again as both a technical and process issue if it's not fixed (for the latter see Brian Carpenter's comments in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c0DyXd_rLtMCrHQ3NmmRRGe7Z-A). Mike Heard On Thu, 17 October 2019 15:18 UTC Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > > This begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering. Please post your > comments by 10/31/2019. > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > >
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
