Subject: Status of various documents

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:43:50 -0700

So I'm piling through to figure out what the status of the various  
documents in v6ops are. We have 21 documents with the name "v6ops" in  
them, many of which are individual submissions and some of which  
relate to transition mechanisms and are therefore not a category we  
are supposed to look at. The good news here is that the tools team  
has put together a web page to show this information, which is at  
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/.

At this instant, we have five documents in IESG Processing:
	draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl
	2005-10-21 18:30
	AD Evaluation

	draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios
	2005-10-21 18:38
	IESG Evaluation

	draft-ietf-v6ops-nap
	2005-10-25 13:55
	IESG Evaluation

	draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview
	2006-03-08 19:24
	IESG Evaluation

	draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis
	2006-05-08 19:20
	Publication Requested

and two in the RFC Editor's queue
	draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption
	2006-01-17 15:50

	draft-ietf-v6ops-vlan-usage
	2006-03-09 16:40

Last call closed with some comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpv6- 
filtering-recs, so I am waiting for an updated document before  
sending that to the IESG.

There has been a security review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels,  
and I am expecting an updated draft before sending it to David. It  
may require another WGLC.

I am waiting for an updated draft of draft-chown-v6ops-port-scanning- 
implications to open WGLC.

I believe that  the following hold:

draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-01.txt       2006-03-07 17:27
	Looking for an update from Marc

draft-blanchet-v6ops-tunnelbroker-tsp-03.txt         2005-10-08 22:00
	Out of scope

draft-chown-v6ops-campus-transition-02.txt           2006-03-09 18:32
	Looking for working group review. Tim to finish sections 4-7 and  
repost.

draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-04.txt         2006-03-09 17:39
	At Tim's discretion

draft-manral-v6ops-tiny-fragments-issues-02.txt      2006-01-09 17:48
	Draft is dead; there was a working group email discussion and it was  
closed.

draft-massar-v6ops-heartbeat-01.txt                  2005-10-08 22:00
	Out of scope

draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-06.txt                   2006-01-18 17:09
	Publication requested by idr

draft-palet-v6ops-6in4-vs-6over4-01.txt              2005-11-16 18:24
	Draft is dead

draft-palet-v6ops-point2point-00.txt                 2006-03-01 13:43
	Draft is dead

draft-shin-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-00.txt  2006-03-02 16:46
	Being republished as a working group draft
	Looking for WG review

draft-vandevelde-v6ops-addcon-00.txt                 2006-02-13 20:10
	Looking for working group review

---

From: "Vishwas Manral" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:32:58 +0530

Hi Fred,

One small doubt. Do let me know if I am missing something?

I am not sure the draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manral-v6ops-tiny-fragments-issues-02.txt
is
dead. It still exists in the IETF repository.

I am not sure of a discussion which said the draft is not required? The
discussion we had was on an initial version of the draft and can be located
at
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2005/msg00693.html

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:10:49 -0700

On May 24, 2006, at 12:02 AM, Vishwas Manral wrote:

> I am not sure the draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- 
> manral-v6ops-tiny-fragments-issues-02.txt is dead. It still exists  
> in the IETF repository.

Yes, it is in the repository; it remains until they flush it out.  
What I was saying is that discussion seems to be at an end.

What would you like to do with it further? Do you plan to continue  
driving this?

---

From: "Vishwas Manral" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:26:28 +0530

Hi Fred,

I thought it was an important enough issue to be addressed, from the
operational perspective.

If possible I would want to drive it further. Would be eager to get your
views on the same.

Thanks for restarting the discussion,
Vishwas

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:55:37 -0700

OK, folks. Lets get a review.

    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manral-v6ops-tiny- 
fragments-issues-02.txt
   "Operational issues with Tiny Fragments in IPv6", Vishwas Manral,  
9-Jan-06,
   <draft-manral-v6ops-tiny-fragments-issues-02.txt>

The principal comment that I noted from our previous discussion was  
that the problem existed for IPv4 also, and hence was not  
specifically an IPv6 problem. The working group did not choose to  
make a recommendation on the topic, and personally I wasn't aware  
that we were asked to. The key recommendation seems to be that there  
be a minimum MTU size large enough to contain the IPv6 header (with  
all of its additional headers) plus the second layer header, and that  
middleware devices like firewalls discard messages that were a non- 
last fragment and were smaller than that size.

In such a case, this would convert the attack to another kind of  
attack, one in which the target is bombarded with fragments of  
messages, but never enabled to reassemble them, and attacking the  
reassembly tables and associated memory. The solution for that is  
fortunately trivial - in the event that there is any any overload in  
this area, discard the oldest fragment in the buffer and any other  
fragments that are presumptively part of the same message - the same  
way we protect TCP TCBs.

The origin of the discussion was in Mobile IP, where related issues  
were addressed.

What do folks wish the document said? Is this something for the  
working group to make an effort on? Is there a feeling that it should  
be a working group draft?

On May 24, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> I thought it was an important enough issue to be addressed, from  
> the operational perspective.
>
> If possible I would want to drive it further. Would be eager to get  
> your views on the same.
>