Subject: WG Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nap*

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 06:00:30 -0700 (PDT)

Folks

This note starts the WG Last Call for comments on

  "IPv6 Network Architecture Protection", Gunter Van de Velde,
  28-Mar-05, <draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt>

It may be found on

	 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt

The document's proposed status is Informational.

Please review the document carefully, and send your feedback to the
list. Please also indicate whether or not you believe that this
document is ready to go to the IESG.

This Last Call will end two weeks from today at Close of Business PDT.

Thanks,

Fred

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:54:15 +0300

Hello,

I read the document now again and I tried to read it pretty carefully.
(It is Monday, so, I'm not sure how careful it was, though. ;) Here are
the few comments that I had:

1) Section 2.2: I'm not native English speaker. So, my understanding of
some words might be completely wrong. However, I think the phrase "evil
outside influences" makes me think about something in horror stories
(e.g. Dracula). Would word "malicious" be more appropriate?

2) Section 2.6: The section nicely explains the situation with the IPv4
address space. However, I have recently met misunderstanding of the size
of the private address space. There seems to be a belief out there that
private address space is limitless. 
Would it be appropriate to add some words to address this issue as well?
(E.g. "Even the use of private (RFC1918) IPv4 address space has its
practical limits. Especially, in large network environments the private
address space can be exhausted resulting to difficult or even impossible
operational problems") I'm not sure, though, if it is appropriate in
this particular section.

3) Section 4.4: Usage of Mobile IP is proposed for topology hiding.
However, wouldn't any kind of tunneling do the trick? Is there a reason
that it really must be Mobile IP.

As apparent from the comments, these are basically just nits. I think it
is enough it the editors use their judgment if they think these comments
are valid or not. 

I think the document is ready for the IESG.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:30:53 +0100

> operational problems") I'm not sure, though, if it is appropriate in

Good point.  I think this issue should be stressed somewhere.  
 
Tim

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 06:43:55 -0400

> Good point.  I think this issue should be stressed somewhere.  

I agree that this is an excellent point.  And not just a theoretical
point - I understand that some enterprises have exhausted the addresses
available in 10.0.0.0/8 and must resort to engineering solutions like
internal NAT.

- Ralph

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:28:34 -0400 (EDT)

Jonne,

> (e.g. Dracula). Would word "malicious" be more appropriate?

Good catch. "Malicious" is better than "evil," but "malicious" has its own
unfortunate baggage in *some* parts of the security community, when it is
used as the opposite of "passive." (A "malicious" adversary may actively
tamper, whereas a "passive" adversary only listens. I always disliked that
usage.)

I prefer no value judgment at all. Just drop "evil." If absolutely
necessary, say "adversary." Who knows, the truly bad people may be
"inside," and the good ones are on the "outside" trying to break in. (That
is, there may be legitimate disagreement on good and evil.)

Regards, Richard