Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:45:57 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-10: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis/

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

Thanks for updating the Security Considerations section, I was glad to
see the references added to the fragmentation work that had already been
done.  If the TLS and SSH reference remain in the document, references
would be good - RFC7525 and RFC4250-4254, but my preference would be to
delete the sentence as this document is about IPv6 and developers and
implementers of this standard wouldn't need those references, IPsec is
enough.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 13:31:01 -0400

Hmm... I think it would be good to point out that there are places to secure
things other than IPsec (especially given that these, not IPsec, are the
dominant methods for protecting traffic that goes over IPsec). However,
if people feel strongly for some reason that naming the protocols causes
problems, I can live without that.

-Ekr

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:19:04 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis/

Thanks for clearing Kathleen. I personally think that adding
Informative references to RFC7525 and RFC4251 should be fine.

Regards
Suresh