Re: [OPSEC] IETF Large Interim Meeting - OPSEC, SIDR and V6OPS

>From what I gathered, the agenda for OPSEC and V6OPS will be shorter than >their allocated length. If this is the case, then may I suggest to group OPSEC & V6OPS on the Saturday morning slot? This would probably allow several people to return home earlier (especially after 5 days of RIPE) and

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-04.txt

Here are the modifications that Michael and I did to the previous version (also thanking the reviewers) Thanks to Rama Darbha, we have removed the SHOULD hardcode the LLA to avoid changes of LLA when changing the MAC (same comment by Fernando as well). Thanks to Fernando Gont, we have removed o

Re: [OPSEC] Comments on draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-04.xml

Bill Thanks for your comments, Michael and I just went through all of them and here are our own feedback. - cosmetic and typos are fixed now (MANY thanks) as well as your suggestions to improved readability - we moved RFC 6860 short text from the introduction to approach section - RFC 4443 speci

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-04.txt

hael > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > Sent: mardi 22 octobre 2013 02:11 > To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke); opsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-04.txt > > Hi, Eric, > > On 10/20/2013 02:44

Re: [OPSEC] comments on draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-04

een modified 8) IXP, we preferred not to call out advantages and caveats as they previous ones also apply to IXP Again big thanks -éric > -Original Message- > From: Jen Linkova [mailto:furr...@gmail.com] > Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 18:23 > To: opsec WG; Eric Vyncke (e

Re: [OPSEC] DON'T PANIC: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06

Michael and others, Same boat here: I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only -éric On 13/02/14 10:50, "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" wrote: >For the record: I am not aware of any IPR relating to >draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only > >Michael > >> -Original Message- >> From

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt

Fixing the latest idnits == removing a dangling reference to RFC 792 -éric On 13/02/14 10:05, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for >IP Networ

Re: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting

So, it looks like we will not meet in London? From: Kiran Chittimaneni mailto:k...@google.com>> Date: jeudi 16 janvier 2014 19:57 To: "opsec@ietf.org" mailto:opsec@ietf.org>> Subject: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting Dear Opsec WG, We need to request a meeting timeslot for L

Re: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only IETF last-call

Joel Thanks for your message Michael and I will come back to you Eric - Message d'origine - De : joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] Envoyé : Sunday, April 13, 2014 05:45 PM À : draft-ietf-opsec-lla-o...@tools.ietf.org ; opsec chairs ; opsec@ietf.org Objet : draft-ietf-opsec-lla-

Re: [OPSEC] Progressing draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield

KK, Gunter, Fernando & Will, I have reviewed the document and here are my comments (some cosmetic): * section 1: "on a specified port of the layer-2 device" => "on specific port(s) of the layer-2 device" (plural form) * Section 1: "Only those ports to which a DHCPv6 server" => "Only thos

Re: [OPSEC] Progressing draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield

As far as wording in this draft goes, I am not sure about the ‘- ‘ in “first-fragment” and in “state-less”, but then again I am no English native speaker myself. Best regards Carsten From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sleigh, Robert Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 6:28

Re: [OPSEC] Progressing draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield

Fernando Thanks for your feedback, as you kindly requested my thoughts on some changes, see in-line On 5/06/14 15:41, "Fernando Gont" wrote: > >> * Add a reference to SAVI-DHCP ? > >SAVI-DHCP seems rather orthogonal... but I might be wrong. i.e., >savi-dhcp seems to be about building state on

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-04.txt

Fernando and Tim [Adding V6OPS in cc], Just re-read your I-D, here are some comments: - in the intro, 'van dijk' scanning via reverse DNS is no more 'recent' IMHO (update also section 4.4) - section 3.1.1 is yet another explanation of SLAAC & Co, I usually prefer avoiding repetition because they m

Re: [OPSEC] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7404 (4183)

Andreas Thanks for the report. There is indeed an error in RFC 7404 about the MAC expansion. I cannot imagine how we (the authors) failed to spot it. -éric On 16/11/14 23:09, "RFC Errata System" wrote: >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7404, >"Using Only Link-Local Addres

Re: [OPSEC] "On Firewalls in Internet Security" (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-opsawg-firewalls-analysis-00.txt)

Fernando, Fred and Paul, Sorry for belated reply, here are a couple of comments: The title is a little ambiguous IMHO it is "On Firewalls in Security" (because they also apply inside an 'intranet') or "On Firewalls in Internet Protocol (IP) Security" or "On firewalls and Security of the Internet"

Re: [OPSEC] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6274 (4494)

Indeed, the text in section 3.6 should be corrected (even if it is rather cosmetic as the error is pretty obvious). Thanks Alexander for spotting it :-) -éric On 6/10/15 19:10, "RFC Errata System" wrote: >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6274, >"Security Assessment of the

[OPSEC] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08

The authors (and OPSEC WG chairs) would really appreciate if a review of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08 is done in the coming days/weeks (in time to submit a -09 in case it needs to be amended). This I-D is about the operation security considerations when operating an IPv6 n

Re: [OPSEC] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08

Fred, First thank you for the review, to be honest I was unaware that per RFC 2119 "SHOULD" was a synonym of "RECOMMENDED" ;-) And you suggestion of listing all recommendations is indeed a good idea (but I am afraid that we won't have time to add it for the -09 rev). All other comments are accept

Re: [OPSEC] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08

thentication) 3.1 "bogon and reserved space" Some links might be helpful (e.g. to IANA). 5 "[RFC7084] (which obsoletes [RFC6204]" Missing ")" "[RFC7084] states that a clear choice must be given to the user to select one of those two policies." Does it? I did not

Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] Asking for a review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-08

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" wrote: >Section 2.1.2 is far too permissive for my tastes. We need to be able >to say that

[OPSEC] Call for agenda items for the OPSEC WG

As Gunter and I are finalising the OPSEC WG meeting in Seoul (Thursday morning normally), we are looking for additional topic to be added on the agenda. Thanks for coming back to us (or to the list) -éric & -gunter ___ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.o

[OPSEC] No OPSEC WG meeting in Seoul

Dear all, As we had a mostly empty agenda and as we were fearing not too participants on the last session of a long week, Gunter and I (in agreement with Joel) have decided to cancel our WG meeting in Seoul. This should obviously not prevent any side meetings :-) We wish you an interesting wee

[OPSEC] Call for OPSEC WG agenda items

Gunter and I are building the agenda for our OPSEC WG meeting in Chicago. If you have a document (even outside OPSEC WG) which would be relevant for our WG (having an impact on operational security), then please submit it to opsec-cha...@tools.ietf.org See yo

Re: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6

Thanks Ron for the review, your 2 points about the new RFC 2460bis are right to the point :-) -éric From: OPSEC on behalf of Ron Bonica Date: Monday 17 April 2017 at 22:02 To: Gunter Van De Velde , "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6 Hi Gunter, I support pu

[OPSEC] OPSEC IETF99 Call for agenda items

The OPSEC chairs are planning the meeting in Prague at IETF99 (Wednesday afternoon it seems) for 90 minute. If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please send your request for agenda time to the OPSEC chairs (including document name + duration requested). As operational security touches

[OPSEC] Call for agenda items for OPSEC

Hello, If you have a topic to be discussed/presented during out OPSEC WG meeting in Prague, please let the chairs know. See you in Prague -gunter & -éric ___ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-12.txt

It is an update to take into account the review of Mikael Abrahamsson and Tobias Fiebig. See you in Singapore if you participate in the OPSEC WG meeting on Monday (agenda published BTW) -éric On 30/10/17 22:32, "OPSEC on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A New Internet-Dra

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-12.txt

should expect to discuss this more in Singapore. On 31 October 2017 at 07:09, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > It is an update to take into account the review of Mikael Abrahamsson and Tobias Fiebig. > > See you in Singapore if you participate in the OPSEC WG mee

[OPSEC] Call for agenda Items @ IETF101

Dear all, The chairs are pulling together the agenda for IETF 101. In preparation for the OPSEC WG meeting (currently scheduled on Wednesday 21st) please send agenda requests to the chairs. __Please indicate short abstract, draft name, and time requested.__ Thank you, and see you in Lo

[OPSEC] What is new in draft-ietf-opsec-v6-13.txt ?

There are a lot of changes in the -13 version, many minor and a couple of bigger ones (such the ULA section). A new author, Enno Rey, has joined the team and has provided a tremendous amount of suggestions/changes. We also have acted on the comments from Ole Troan, Ron Bonnica, Bernie Volz, Fern

Re: [OPSEC] some questions about the blockchain draft presented at IETF 101

Adding Jordi to the recipients as he is not a Opsec mailing member AFAIK -éric On 21/03/18 17:47, "OPSEC on behalf of Sandra Murphy" wrote: These questions were too long to ask the jabber scribe to relay. At the scribe’s request, I summarized for the meeting, and promised a fuller versio

[OPSEC] Minutes of OPSEC WG @ IETF-101 uploaded, comments are welcome

Our previous co-chair, Gunter Vandevelde, had kindly accepted to take the minutes during our WG meeting last week. His minutes are uploaded, feel free to suggest corrections as usual. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-opsec-01 Video is also available at: https://yout

[OPSEC] Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

As discussed during the WG meeting in London IETF-101, let's have a call for adopting draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements as an OPSEC Working Group document. The call will last 2 weeks until 18th of April included (UTC midnight). So, please reply to the list whether you support the adoption or

[OPSEC] Reminder: Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

Still two days to state whether you want this I-D adopted by our OPSEC WG -éric & -ron From: OPSEC on behalf of Eric Vyncke Date: Wednesday 4 April 2018 at 12:15 To: "opsec@ietf.org" Cc: "draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improveme...@ietf.org" Subject: [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-op

[OPSEC] FW: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering for 2 weeks

[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 discus

[OPSEC] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering is closed and positive

The WGLC on this document is now closed and the outcome if positive. Authors, would you mind submitting a revised version addressing the comments of Darren Dukes (see below) so that we can submit this revision to the IESG queue. -éric & -ron On 30/05/2018, 20:30, "OPSEC on behalf of Darren Du

[OPSEC] Agenda for OPSEC WG meeting + jabber scribe + minutes taker

The agenda has been slightly updated, a fresh copy is available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/agenda-102-opsec-04 Is there any volunteer for jabber scribe or minutes taker? Please step forward :-) See you tomorrow -éric -ron ___

[OPSEC] IETF-103: call for OPSEC agenda

Dear OPSEC members, If you want to present a document during the OPSEC WG meeting (currently scheduled on Tuesday 6 11:20 to 12:20), please send to opsec-cha...@ietf.org : the speaker name, document ID and requested duration. See you in Bangkok -éric & -ron

Re: [OPSEC] opsec - Cancelling a meeting request for IETF 103

As we had only one request to be on the agenda, Ron and I have decided to cancel this meeting. Let's meet next year in Prague and meanwhile, any volunteer for the potential action points mentioned in Montreal? - refreshing RFC 4778 OpSec Current Practices in ISP networks - refreshing RFC 6192 P

Re: [OPSEC] New Work

Hello Stefan, Did you get any chance to have a hack to the existing RFC 6192 ? -éric On 19/07/2018, 18:15, "OPSEC on behalf of ShortestPathFirst" wrote: Hi Ron, I’d be interested in updating RFC 6192. Doesn’t seem like it would be too involved and could probably be knocked out

[OPSEC] Changes in draft-ietf-opsec-v6-14

As you know by now, there will be no OPSEC WG meeting at IETF-103 in November (there was only 1 item on the agenda). So, the authors of opsec-v6 document would like to start discussion on the latest revision. Please find below the link to the differences between -12 and -14 (so two revisions).

[OPSEC] Is there any IPR associated to draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06 ?

Dear authors, I am the document shepherd for your I-D draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06. Can you respond to this message stating whether they know of any IPR associated with this draft? Thank you -éric ___ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https:

Re: [OPSEC] Is there any IPR associated to draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06 ?

received a failure notification. Regards, / 致礼! Will LIU / 刘树成 -Original Message- From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Liushucheng (Will Liu) Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 9:50 AM To: Fernando Gont ; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ; opse

Re: [OPSEC] IETF 104

Ron, The OPSECv6 authors would like to present the -15 revision (to be uploaded in the coming days) with the intent of asking for WGLC. Presenter will like be Kiran K. Chittimaneni for 10-15 minutes as we will present the changelog + ask Thank you in advance -éric On 05/03/2019, 23:25, "Ron

[OPSEC] What is new in draft-ietf-opsec-v6-15 ?

The authors have published a new version. As usual, the diff is https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-15.txt But, it consists mainly (based on comments from Fernando and others): * Some changes in the flow/order to make it more readable + fixing typos * Refresh of the

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-15.txt

Brian and Bob, First of all, thank you for the quick review. And especially, the text around EUI-64 & SLAAC which we, the authors, will gladly accept. In order to progress with this draft, the authors will issue today a -16 where the ULA section will simply be reduced to mention the ULA conside

Re: [OPSEC] Appointing Jen Linkova as OpSec WG chair.

Warren, a really good choice of yours! Jen is a rare combination of operational and security knowledge! With a lot of energy From: OPSEC on behalf of Warren Kumari Date: Friday, 5 April 2019 at 16:22 To: opsec wg mailing list , Jen Linkova Subject: [OPSEC] Appointing Jen Linkova as OpSec WG

Re: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-v6

Thank you Fred and Jordi -éric On 30/03/2019, 14:30, "OPSEC on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" wrote: Additional inputs follow. I will follow the discussion if anything else need to be clarified. 2.3.3. Securing DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DH

Re: [OPSEC] Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks (draft-ietf-opsec-v6)

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 docume

Re: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-v6-17

Thank you Bernie for the review. We will fix this nits with any other comments received during the WGLC. -éric On 22/07/2019, 18:12, "Bernie Volz (volz)" wrote: Hi: Here’s some very minor nits (RFC editor would correct): 1. s/feasable/feasible/ 2. s/section Section 2

[OPSEC] Chairs' & authors' review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-17

Jen and Ron, As discussed during the IETF-105 week, the 3 of us should review the document before going WGLC and we should apply due diligence to this review: 1 first of August. FYI I have reviewed draft-ietf-opsec-v6-17 completely and I am fine with the current content. (just a couple of typos

Re: [OPSEC] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements-03: (with COMMENT)

Thank you Sriram for the updated document. Just a minor nit: in the terminology section, P2C and C2P are in uppercase but p2p is in lower case. This can be fixed later at the AUTH48 stage -éric On 31/08/2019, 06:46, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" wrote: Eric, Thank you for your c

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-18.txt

With this revision, the authors have taken into account the very extensive review by Jen Linkova and other previous comments from Donald Smith, Jordi Palet and Bernie Volz. As discussed at IETF-105, the authors would like to start another working group last call. Let's finish this document wit

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-18.txt

Brian, Thank you for the improved text. Expect a -19 any time soon -éric On 21/09/2019, 23:14, "OPSEC on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" wrote: Hi, I think the ULA section is still not quite right. > 2.1.1. Use of ULAs > >Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4

Re: [OPSEC] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6-19

Gyan, Thank you for reviewing our draft. It is very much appreciated by the authors. As a co-author of this draft, I agree with your point of view on the stability of IPv6 addresses in the specific case of a “trusted network”, esp when RFC 7127 and 8064 are widely deployed. See more comments

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20.txt

As you will notice in https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20 this latest revision addresses a suggestion by Gyan Mishra issued during the Working Group Last Call. Other changes are mainly replacing the normative "MUST" and "SHOULD" as it is an informational document (so it is n

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20.txt

> > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -Original Message- > From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 3:41 AM > To: opsec@ietf.org > Cc: Jen Linkova ; Ron Bonica > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: dr

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-20.txt

t from my iPhone > On Oct 15, 2019, at 2:12 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Gyan, > > Thank you very much for being 'victimteered' as the document shepherd [1] __ > > Thank you Jen and Ron for your support > > R

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt

Hello Gyan, Thank you for reminding the author to post the 'gist' of the changes with version -21. Our OPS AD, Warren "Ace" Kumari, has kindly reviewed our document and has identified more than 70 areas where the text was ambiguous or using bad English... No wonder, none of the 4 authors are

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt

(Obsoleted by RFC 7526) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3627 (Obsoleted by RFC 6547) Thank you Gyan On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:38 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hello Gyan, Thank you for reminding the author to post

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt

nge it. Finally, we will extend/clarify the 'optional' part of HbB in RFC 8200 that was oversimplification. => all the above will be updated when the IETF-wide LastCall is over. Regards -éric On 09/11/2019, 17:47, "Bob Hinden" wrote: Eric, > On Nov

Re: [OPSEC] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

Thank you very much Linda: this was a long document to read and review ;-) -éric On 02/12/2019, 19:19, "Linda Dunbar via Datatracker" wrote: Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review result: Ready I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to re

Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

Thank you Erik for the extended review. The authors will fix the nits and clarify the text -éric On 03/12/2019, 02:24, "Erik Kline via Datatracker" wrote: Reviewer: Erik Kline Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area

Re: [OPSEC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

Tim Thank you for your additional review. And, I feel really bad if we, the authors, have not reacted to your previous review (even if I had in mind that we acted on it -- possibly not changing the text to fit completely your view) -éric On 06/12/2019, 10:34, "Tim Chown via Datatracker" wrot

Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

Hello Erik Thank you again for the review. We have accepted all your nits except those below (see EV>). They will appear in revision -22 Regards -éric (the other one) On 02/12/2019, 17:24, "Erik Kline via Datatracker" wrote: - It's not clear if RFC 2119 text is needed for this docum

Re: [OPSEC] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-13

Hello Tim, Better very late than never… Having some time this week to make some progress on this I-D... I hope to publish a -22 before the IETF-110. Some comments on the outdated review are prefixed with EV> Thank you for your review :-) -éric -Original Message- From: Tim Chown Date:

Re: [OPSEC] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-13

Hello Donald, As for Tim Chown's review, here is my belated reply... Look for EV> Thank you for the review -éric -Original Message- From: "Smith, Donald" Date: Monday, 2 July 2018 at 22:14 To: Tim Chown , "ops-...@ietf.org" Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-opsec-v6@ietf.org"

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt

n Nov 8, 2019, at 11:57 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Gyan > > Thank you very much for your shepherd write-up, very much appreciated by the authors. > > The list of the ‘obsoleted’ references is intentional indeed to ensure that readers

[OPSEC] Addressing the OPS-DIR review of

[Text copied from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsec-v6-21-opsdir-lc-chown-2019-12-06/ ] Tim, The 2nd batch of your comments, this time on the previous version -21. Look for EV> Again, thank you for having spent valuable time to review our document. Regards -éric S

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-22.txt

This new revision (long due...) addresses the comments received from the OPS directorate (Tim Chown and Don Smith) + Mohamed Boucadair. The authors still need to address the IETF Last Call comments from the following directorates: IoT (Ted Lemon), Routing (Acee Lindem), Security (Linda Dunbar),

Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

Hello Erik, Revision -23 (soon to be published) should incorporate the remaining issues (most of the previous ones were fixed in the just released -22). See EV23> Thank you again for your valuable review -éric -Original Message- From: Eric Vyncke Date: Saturday, 14 December 2019 at 2

Re: [OPSEC] RtgDir: Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt - "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks"

Hello Acee, Thank you for your directorate review and sorry for such a belated reply! Special thanks for the DIFF containing suggestions for improving the text. Most of them have been applied (none of the authors is English native so such assistance is welcome) Look below for EV> for more comm

Re: [OPSEC] RtgDir: Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt - "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks"

eview of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt - "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks" Hi Eric, Thanks for incorporating my comments. See one inline. On 2/9/21, 6:10 AM, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" wrote: Hello Acee, Thank you for your directorate

Re: [OPSEC] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

Gyan, About your comment of DUID not having a MAC address in the 48 LSB bits, section 2.6.1.5 has now more text around this issue. Hope this clarifies and thank you for being the document shepherd -éric -Original Message- From: Gyan Mishra Date: Monday, 18 November 2019 at 07:50 To:

Re: [OPSEC] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

Ted, Just to confirm that the revision -23 should have all your review items addressed except the 3 cited by Merike. The section 2.3.2 has been revised extensively. Thank you again for this review -éric -Original Message- From: Merike Kaeo Date: Thursday, 5 December 2019 at 20:13 T

Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-23.txt

This -23 version should address all the points raised during the IETF Last Call. I am contacting the OPSEC AD & chairs to move forward with the publication (this could include another IETF Last Call though as there are 250 changes: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21&url2=dra

Re: [OPSEC] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

nate multi-homing, which I hope is not something that we are proposing to do. On Feb 9, 2021, at 8:04 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: Ted, Just to confirm that the revision -23 should have all your review items addressed except the 3 cited by Merike. The sectio

[OPSEC] IPR on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering

Fernando, Will, As your document is going through a 2nd WGLC, there is a need to refresh the document shepherd write-up so I have to check again with you whether there are some IPR to be declared (i.e., I need a positive or negative reply from you). This call for IPR disclosure is also applic

Re: [OPSEC] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21

EC] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21 That’s a big improvement, Éric. Thanks! On Feb 12, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: Ted, As you guessed in your email : we, the authors, do not want to prevent multi-homing ;-) E.g., we already

Re: [OPSEC] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24

Thank you Acee for the review and the diff. The authors will work on your review. Regards -éric -Original Message- From: Acee Lindem via Datatracker Reply-To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Tuesday, 23 March 2021 at 15:19 To: "rtg-...@ietf.org" Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-v6@ietf.org" ,

Re: [OPSEC] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24

Acee, Big thank you on your nits review! As a non-English speaker, I always welcome (and learn from) such a detailed review. The just posted -25 has all the nits fixed (per your other email) and we took action on your two suggestions below. BTW, we added a reference to RFC 8177 in section 2.5.3

Re: [OPSEC] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-v6-26: (with COMMENT)

Thank you Ben for this extended review. The authors will obviously reply to all your comment and upload a revised I-D with some modifications. Indeed, some comments of yours have been under heavy discussions at the OPSEC WG and the text is the WG rough consensus (we will indicate this case in

Re: [OPSEC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-25

Tim, Warren, Replying with only the author hat (and after consultation with my co-authors) on this email after having read Warren's and Tim's replies. Tim, I do not know whether you remember all the painful journey of this document but the authors do :-) a) the early versions of the I-D inclu

Re: [OPSEC] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-25

red as best as I can to -25, and submitted the review. I’m happy enough to put a ‘Ready’ tag on it. It could always be better, but at 50 pages, I fully understand why shipping it is desirable. I can’t see anything specifically wrong in the text :) Tim > On 21 Apr 2021, at 19:3

Re: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24 - Shepherd Review update

Thank you Gyan -éric From: Gyan Mishra Date: Monday, 26 April 2021 at 06:34 To: opsec WG , OpSec Chairs , Eric Vyncke Subject: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24 - Shepherd Review update Hi Eric I will do another final Shepherd review now of the draft as this draft as it is on its way to publication.

Re: [OPSEC] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-v6-25: (with COMMENT)

[Wearing only the authors' hat] Hello Lars, Thank you very much for your detailed review. I know that it takes time and effort ;-) Together with my co-authors, we have uploaded revision -27, which should addresses all your comments and nits. The diff is at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=d

Re: [OPSEC] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-08: (with COMMENT)

Replying with my IPv6 + shepherd hats Indeed, I fail to understand why *transit* SP are dropping EH (as opposed to final destination router/firewall, which should drop some EH) I sincerely hope that this document will rather 'open the gate' as some EH are recommended to go through -éric 

Re: [OPSEC] [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-08

Thank you Tim for your review just in time before the IESG evaluation. I have just added your review to my ballot position. Regards -éric -Original Message- From: Int-dir on behalf of Tim Chown via Datatracker Reply-To: Tim Chown Date: Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 17:24 To: "int-...

Re: [OPSEC] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7126 (6815)

Dear RFC Editor, Please mark this errata as junk Regards -éric On 12/01/2022, 12:08, "OPSEC on behalf of RFC Errata System" wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7126, "Recommendations on Filtering of IPv4 Packets Containing IPv4 Options". ---

[OPSEC] New OPSEC individual draft on probe attribution

[Posting as a plain author without any other hat] Benoît, Justin, and I have just uploaded a new draft (less than 10 pages): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-vyncke-opsec-probe-attribution-00 The abstract reads as: Active measurements at Internet-scale can target either collaborating

Re: [OPSEC] New OPSEC individual draft on probe attribution

Hello Fernando, Thank you for your quick review, we completely agree with you: 1) the reverse DNS/web server is probably to be preferred, so, we will move the section 4 'out of band' before the inband section to put more focus on this technique 2) on the URI in the payload, indeed this will not

Re: [OPSEC] New OPSEC individual draft on probe attribution

this short informational IETF drafts. Regards -éric PS: it seems obvious, but the above is posted with just my OPSEC member's hat ;-) -Original Message- From: OPSEC on behalf of "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" Date: Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 12:06 To: Fernando Gont , &qu

[OPSEC] FW: [Maprg] Draft agenda for IETF-113 uploaded

As written by Mirja below, this may also be of interest to the OPSEC community -éric -Original Message- From: ipv6 on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind Date: Friday, 11 March 2022 at 18:58 To: "int-a...@ietf.org" , "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org> Cc: "Plonka, David" Subject: FW: [Maprg] Dra

Re: [OPSEC] Anything to discuss at IETF114?

Jen, While I understand that draft-vyncke-opsec-probe-attribution is really too light to be the only agenda item, if OPSEC meets, then I would appreciate to have 10 minutes to present this I-D. Regards -éric -Original Message- From: OPSEC on behalf of Jen Linkova Date: Tuesday, 2

Re: [OPSEC] Adoption call for draft-vyncke-opsec-probe-attribution

Without any surprise, as co-author (and no other hat), I am in favor of adopting this short document. -éric On 28/07/2022, 01:37, "Jen Linkova" wrote: This email starts the adoption call for draft-vyncke-opsec-probe-attribution (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vyncke-opsec-pro

Re: [OPSEC] Adoption call for draft-vyncke-opsec-probe-attribution

Thank Jen and the OPSEC WG ! Let's now polish this I-D -éric On 02/09/2022, 12:38, "Jen Linkova" wrote: The adoption call has finished and the chairs believe the group is in favour of adopting the draft. The authors - please re-submit as a WG document. Thank you! On Thu,

[OPSEC] Next steps for draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution

Hello Opsec'ers, As the end of year is approaching with all good intent for 2023, what about adding a WG last call for this document for 2023 ? The I-D is short and relies on common sense, so it should be easy to review it ;-) May I kindly suggest to the OPSEC WG chairs to start the WGLC if th

Re: [OPSEC] draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution: WGLC

Hello Fernando, Now, it is my turn to apologize for the belated reply ;-) About the section 4 and the impact of data in the SYN packet, you are correct: this may influence the experiment, hence we wrote " However, it may change the way the packet is processed;" we could be perhaps more explicit

Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-01.txt

Hello Andy, Sorry for belated reply... and thank you for your detailed review. Based on our own experiences, the authors would like to keep the in-band probe attribution in the text. It of course lacks several properties of the out-of-band attribution, and it also can bias the experiment result

Re: [OPSEC] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution

Jen, I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution Regards -éric On 04/04/2023, 05:05, "Jen Linkova" mailto:furr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear authors, Could you please confirm if you are aware of any IPR claims related to draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution? Thank y

  1   2   >