Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-14: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:12:22 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a bit confused here - you use a field from SEND, and
then say that that could be borked, so the mitigation is
that one might use SEND to protect that. Why not just use
SEND - can you explain?

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:18:26 -0500

Hiya Stephen,

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad/

This approach is just using the nonce option to identify the packet when
it is looped back to the sending system.  This can be applied to systems
and/or networks that either can't or won't deploy the entire SEND
infrastructure.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:18:26 -0500

Hiya Stephen,

Regards,
Brian