Subject: Re: [OPSEC] WGLC: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:58:00 -0700

The document (version -06, expired 2019-01-03) is unchanged since last
year's IETF last call that started in November 2018. That version drew a
lot of substantive comments that have not been addressed (see
thread starting at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KKyXXrvHa5r5mNcqlu_CbkktQmY).
Isn't a WGLC without any discussion of these issues (not even to dismiss
them) somewhat premature? Would it not be more appropriate to comb through
the last call threads, extract the substantive comments, and make a
considered decision what to do about each, possibly after submitting a new
version without changes to un-expire the document?

As a reminder, one of the substantive objections raised was that the
document recommends blanket discarding of unknown next header values,
violating RFC 7045. Expect this to come up again as both a technical and
process issue if it's not fixed (for the latter see Brian Carpenter's
comments in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c0DyXd_rLtMCrHQ3NmmRRGe7Z-A).

Mike Heard

On Thu, 17 October 2019 15:18 UTC Ron Bonica wrote:

> Folks,
>
> This begins a WGLC on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering. Please post your comments by 10/31/2019.
>
>                                                        Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:20:14 -0700

I agree with Mike.  Without a discussion of the issues raised and how to resolve them, I think it’s premature to start a w.g. last call.

I also note that the draft expired January 3, 2019, over eight months ago.

Bob

> On Oct 18, 2019, at 7:58 AM, C. M. Heard <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The document (version -06, expired 2019-01-03) is unchanged since last year's IETF last call that started in November 2018. That version drew a lot of substantive comments that have not been addressed (see thread starting at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KKyXXrvHa5r5mNcqlu_CbkktQmY). Isn't a WGLC without any discussion of these issues (not even to dismiss them) somewhat premature? Would it not be more appropriate to comb through the last call threads, extract the substantive comments, and make a considered decision what to do about each, possibly after submitting a new version without changes to un-expire the document?
> 
> As a reminder, one of the substantive objections raised was that the document recommends blanket discarding of unknown next header values, violating RFC 7045. Expect this to come up again as both a technical and process issue if it's not fixed (for the latter see Brian Carpenter's comments in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c0DyXd_rLtMCrHQ3NmmRRGe7Z-A).
> 
> Mike Heard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:49:07 +0000

Let the discussion begin !

                 😉
                    Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 11:20 AM
To: C. M. Heard <[email-masked]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>; OPSEC <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] WGLC: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering

Bob

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:15:26 +0000

Folks,

Given these comments, let's suspend the WGLC until a new version is submitted.

                                         Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 11:20 AM
To: C. M. Heard <[email-masked]>
Cc: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>; Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>; OPSEC <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] WGLC: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering

Bob