Subject: Call for adoption:draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-01.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:35:19 -0500

All,
     This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting

     Title     : Security Assessment of the IPv6 Flow Label
     Author(s) : F. Gont
     Filename  : draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-01.txt
     Pages     : 20
     Date      : 2010-11-17

as a 6MAN WG document.  Please state your opinion (either for or
against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or
to the chairs.  This call will end December 22, 2010.

Regards,
Brian & Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:08:48 +1300

On 2010-12-09 04:35, Brian Haberman wrote:
> as a 6MAN WG document.  

Yes and no.

I believe the material is valuable and should be adopted in some way
by 6man. However

(a) The lack of negative reactions to draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00,
which we did adopt after Beijing, suggests that we'll be doing
an RFC3697bis reasonably soon. At a minimum, draft-gont needs
revision in parallel with that.

(b) At the moment draft-gont mixes two things: a "Security Assessment
of the IPv6 Flow Label" as stated in its title, and a normative
recommendation on how to generate a pseudo-random flow label. I wonder
whether the latter part doesn't actually belong in RFC3697bis?

    Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:03:07 -0300

> revision in parallel with that.

Yep. This was implicit. :-)

> whether the latter part doesn't actually belong in RFC3697bis?

I guess that is among the possible options. There may be arguments for
keeping this stuff in this I-D, or to move it into RFC3697. I'm open to
the many possibilities....

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