Subject: [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-00]

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:45:13 -0300

Folks,

I have just published an Internet-Draft entitled "Security Assessment of
the IPv6 Flow Label" that analyzes the security implications of the Flow
Label header field, and proposes a scheme to set the Flow Label that is
compliant with RFC 3697, and compatible with
draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02.

The I-D is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-00.txt

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Fernando

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-00
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

A new version of I-D, draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-00.txt has been
successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Security Assessment of the IPv6 Flow Label
Creation_date:	 2010-08-12
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 20

Abstract:
This document discusses the security implications of the IPv6 "Flow
Label" header field, and analyzes possible schemes for selecting the
Flow Label value of IPv6 packets.

The IETF Secretariat.

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:06:23 -0500

draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02 is expired and I haven't heard much effort to push it forward again. IMO it would be more helpful to consider security implications and evaluate your solution with draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03, draft-donley-6man-flowlabel-transport-sig-00, etc in mind. I believe that it should integrate well, but I'd rather see a draft revision that takes this explicitly into consideration.

Thanks,
Wes George

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-00]

Folks,

The I-D is available at:

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Fernando

-------- Original Message --------

Abstract:

The IETF Secretariat.

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

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:39:06 -0400

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:06:23 -0500, "George, Wes E [NTK]"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02 is expired and I haven't heard much
> effort to push it forward again. IMO it would be more helpful to
consider
> security implications and evaluate your solution with
> draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03,
> draft-donley-6man-flowlabel-transport-sig-00, etc in mind. I believe
that
> it should integrate well, but I'd rather see a draft revision that takes
> this explicitly into consideration.

I won't be revising my draft until some consensus emerges on the use of
the flow label.

Regards,

// Steve

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:01:58 +1200

> I won't be revising my draft until some consensus emerges on the use of

Fair enough. As for draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update, the authors are still
mulling over what to do next. As noted in my immediatly previous message,
my personal inclination is towards the most simple approach possible.

I find draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security very helpful to be going on with.

    Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:22:39 -0300

Hi, George,

Please find my comments inline....

> draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02 is expired and I haven't heard
> much effort to push it forward again. IMO it would be more helpful to
> consider security implications and evaluate your solution with
> that it should integrate well, but I'd rather see a draft revision
> that takes this explicitly into consideration.

The I-D describes a Flow Label generation algorithm that is compliant
with the current specifications, and that also integrates well with
draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce and use of the FL for ECMP.

My understanding is that draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update describes a
possible update of the current specs *if* there's consensus for that.

I'm not sure there has been consensus on updating the Flow Label
specification, though.

Thanks!

Kind regards,