Subject: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 09:31:52 -0700

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 Network Infrastructure Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : DHCPv6-Shield: Protecting Against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers
        Authors         : Fernando Gont
                          Will Liu
                          Gunter Van de Velde
	Filename        : draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-07.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2015-05-15

Abstract:
   This document specifies a mechanism for protecting hosts connected to
   a switched network against rogue DHCPv6 servers.  It is based on
   DHCPv6 packet-filtering at the layer-2 device at which the packets
   are received.  A similar mechanism has been widely deployed in IPv4
   networks ('DHCP snooping'), and hence it is desirable that similar
   functionality be provided for IPv6 networks.  This document specifies
   a Best Current Practice for the implementation of DHCPv6 Shield.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 20:34:50 -0700 (PDT)

Greetings,

The text in Section 3 seems to have dropped the step saying that if 
the packet is identified to be a DHCPv6 packet meant for a DHCPv6 
client then a DHCPv6-Shield implementation MUST drop the packet.  
That omission defeats the entire purpose of the draft and renders it 
unsuitable for publication.

As noted in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/msg01870.html, 
this problem was introduced in the -06 version of the draft.  Could the authors 
PLEASE fix this, or else point out where in -07 this step is spelled out?

//cmh