Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 08:51:08 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-05: 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-resilient-rs/

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

security considerations: I note that RFC 4861 has been
updated, including by RFC 5942, which specifically says it
addresses a security concern in 4861. (I didn't check the
others.) I think it'd be better to say here "beyond those
discussed in [RFC4861] and RFCs that update that" or some
such. Or point to all the relevant ones, or tell me that it
doesn't matter for this:-)

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 04:58:02 +0000

Hi Stephen,
   Thanks for your comment.

Makes sense. Even though the security concerns from RFC5942 do not 
directly apply to the mechanism proposed in this document, there are 
other security updates to RFC4861 in the pipeline in 6man that may 
apply. Will include this phrase in the next rev.

Regards
Suresh

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:49:11 +0100

That seems fine, thanks,
S