Subject: Fwd: Teredo and Tunneling WGLC

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:50:57 +0900

I have no idea what is going on here. I sent this on Monday, but have  
not received it back from the list. Apologies in advance if you see a  
duplicate.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> Date: August 4, 2008 4:22:05 PM JST
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>, Ron Bonica <[email-masked] 
> >, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Teredo and Tunneling WGLC
>
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of two  
> documents.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update
>   "Teredo Security Updates", Dave Thaler, Suresh Krishnan, James  
> Hoagland,
>   14-Jul-08, <draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-03.txt>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions
>   "Teredo Extensions", Dave Thaler, 14-Jul-08,
>   <draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-01.txt>
>
> Please read them now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor  
> suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find  
> greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding  
> additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your  
> comments to the list.
>
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the  
> documents as well as their content. If you have read the documents  
> and believe them to be of operational utility, that is also an  
> important comment to make.

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:31:06 +0300

> >   14-Jul-08, <draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-03.txt>

I have already expressed myself on this one here (no reply):
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01240.html

> >   <draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-01.txt>

And here http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01183.html

I am also concerned that the new message formatting that this proposes is not 
backward compatible with RFC4380. Depends how one interprets RFC4380, page 
22:

   An IPv6 packet is deemed valid if it conforms to [RFC2460]: the
   protocol identifier should indicate an IPv6 packet and the payload
   length should be consistent with the length of the UDP datagram in
   which the packet is encapsulated.

draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions implicitly assumes that a "consistent" 
length means a smaller or equal length. I know deployed Teredo relays which 
considers a "consistent" length to be stricly equal. As far as I can tell, 
such a Teredo node will not interoperate with a 
draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-01 Teredo node. It is debatable whether 
such a legacy node is broken. In any case, this issue should at the very 
least be mentioned in the document, in my humble opinion.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:43:25 -0400

Hi Remi,

> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01240.html

Sorry about that. My response to this never got out due to some problems 
in our mail system. I have resent it today.

Cheers
Suresh

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:19:29 +0800

we have been running a WGLC on this. We have gotten comments I have  
seen from the Security Directorate and from Remi. My plan right now is  
to let Krishnan update his draft accordingly and get agreement from  
those who commented and then mail the two in. Anyone else that wishes  
to comment, now would be a good time.

I was going to start a WGLC on the Rogue RA work this coming week. I  
asked for review from SecDir, 6man, and Ops Area, and the SecDir  
reviews have called for further work. So we will wait on that WGLC  
until the authors have the issues on the table sorted out.

On Aug 7, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> I have no idea what is going on here. I sent this on Monday, but  
> have not received it back from the list. Apologies in advance if you  
> see a duplicate.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you  
>> find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or  
>> finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post  
>> your comments to the list.
>>