Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications WGLC

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:09:12 +0100

This is to announce a working group last call of http:// 
tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications. It has  
had review in DHCP and the DNS Extensions Working Groups, and we need  
now to come to closure on it.

Please read the draft at this time, noting spelling or wording issues  
to the authors and substantive issues to the authors copying the list.

Working Group last call will close in two weeks.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:32:48 -0500

Hello,

> to the authors and substantive issues to the authors copying the list.

I have read the draft.  I have a small concern about a sentence in
section 3.4:

   It is also worth noting that the reverse DNS tree may also expose
   address information.

The way the section is worded, it sounds as though the draft is
recommending not to publish data in the reverse tree in order to
avoid this vector for attack.  If the paragraph were altered to read
as follows, the implication would not be there, I think:

   It is also worth noting that the reverse DNS tree may also expose
   address information.  Populating the reverse DNS tree for the
   entire subnet, even if not all addresses are actually used, may
   reduce that exposure.

Best regards,
Andrew Sullivan

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110