Subject: [rfc2461bis] Security issues

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:48:30 -0400

Folks, 

I'm formally addressing the issues left for 2461bis.
All the issues were either resolved or agreed on in
the meeting. The next series of emails are to inform
the list about the resolutions that we already agreed
on and see if there are any comments before I close the
issues. 

The security issues were regarding:
- Use of IPsec
- Relation to SEND

The current draft includes the following:

- Removed suggestions for using IPsec to secure ND
- A discussion on IPsec and when it might be useful
- Expanded the security considerations section to include
  more threats and pros and cons of using IPsec
- Referenced threats and solutions drafts in SEND.

Please read the current draft, in particular sections
3.3 and 11 to see all the changes. If there are no
objections I'll close this issue.

Hesham

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:49:33 -0700

Hesham,

Section 3 looks good.

On Section 11, I've got the following comments:

1) Much of what is in the Section 11.1 seems a summary of RFC 3756. On the
one hand, I suppose it is helpful to refresh the reader's memory, on the
other, it could shorten the spec and make for less reading. It's just a
stylistic issue.

2) Regarding in Section 11.1 last paragraph:

   many of the threats discussed in this section are less
   effective, or non-existent, on point-to-point links, or cellular
   links where hosts share links with one neighbor, i.e. the default
   router.

I thought 2461 explicitly did not apply to point to point links or
point-to-point like links such as cellphones, and other links that were NBMA
(speaking of which, I suppose the actual NBMA technology has been worked out
by now, so the statement in Section 1 paragraph 2 about NBMA being FFS might
be obsolete and, if so, could be replaced by a reference to the RFC where
that is described).

The discussion of IPsec in Section 11.2 looks fine.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:48 AM
Subject: [rfc2461bis] Security issues

Folks,

Hesham

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is
strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the
sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================