I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just li
Hi Andreas,
At 06:41 11-07-2012, Andreas Petersson wrote:
How is it "random bits of information" when the specifications says
that it MUST be underscore?
As far as I can think of, the only thing that it will tell is that the
implementation is following this specification.
So, on the contrary; th
Hi. I'd like to speak in favor of maintaining endpoint independent
filtering as the default and maintaining requirement 11 D. I think
requirement 11 D is important for avoiding some hard to analyze but
potentially very dangerous security problems. If I can trick a NAT into
replacing an existing ma
Overall this is a good document and I support its approval. A few items
should be clarified before approval, please see below:
1. In the introduction:
> In addition,
IPv6 provides tools for autoconfiguration, which is particularly
suitable for sensor network applications and nodes which
There are few things that in my opinion should be added.
First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port
numbers should be mentioned. Moreover if port numbers are allocated to each
CPE, what is the criteria for allocation. As mentioned in the document : “
There should
> "Simon" == Simon Perreault writes:
Simon> MUST NOT permit the lifetime of a mapping to be reduced beyond its
Simon> current life or be set to zero (deleted)
OK.
>> and MUST NOT support the third-party option.
Simon> I think pcp-base-26 added restrictions to THIRD_PARTY
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:32:08 -0400
Alissa Cooper wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Andreas Petersson wrote:
> >> The first half of the statement is basically a refinement of the previous
> >> sentence in the section ("The Forwarded HTTP header field, by design,
> >> exposes information tha
On 07/10/2012 10:43 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known
port numbers should be mentioned.
As draft editor, I would ask for a justification. I can't add a
requirement without a justification.
Moreover if port numbers are allocated
to each
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:43:43 -0700
SM wrote:
>>> In Section 6.3:
>>>
>>>'To distinguish the obfuscated identifier from other identifiers,
>>> it MUST have a leading underscore "_".'
>>>
>>> I suggest removing the requirement and using "can". The implementer
>>> can decide what to put i
Tina,
Thanks for the comment.
> First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port
> numbers should be mentioned.
I think that even if well know port is allocated as src address,
there would be no problem.
The document is aiming at "minimal" set of requirements to mak
10 matches
Mail list logo
