[05:48:38] --- john.loughney has become available [06:00:09] --- arifumi has become available [06:01:54] few ppl here [06:02:42] I am jabber [06:05:12] I am on jabber, i mean [06:05:59] --- rhe has become available [06:06:12] --- trond has become available [06:06:20] --- rdenisc has become available [06:06:26] --- nm has become available [06:06:27] --- psavola has become available [06:06:29] scribe here [06:06:50] IPv6 node reqs from J. Loughney [06:07:02] --- sureshk has become available [06:07:04] --- Haurhiko Nishida has become available [06:07:20] --- dudi has become available [06:09:07] --- geir has become available [06:09:22] --- dthaler has become available [06:14:22] bob hinden agreed PS would make sense [06:14:51] --- ona has become available [06:17:23] as long as it doesn't specify new behavior [06:17:50] --- nm has left: Replaced by new connection [06:18:05] --- nm has become available [06:18:43] Psavola and JArkko think we need to involve the security area [06:18:58] Ok [06:19:37] templin: can you say more about relationship to DOD and NIST docs [06:20:12] Ed coming to mike but thomas is before him [06:20:25] --- jm has become available [06:21:04] Narten: there is no relationship, but theirs have a relationship to this one. but useful to know [06:22:16] --- miyahiro has become available [06:22:20] --- Haurhiko Nishida has left [06:23:01] --- nishida has become available [06:23:16] ? asked if someone ensure this does not add new requirements that would have gone unnoticed [06:25:47] psavola: profiles from 3rd parties should be documented by them - not in an RFC appendix [06:25:55] --- atarashi has become available [06:26:58] From RFC 4301 (ipsec arch): "IPsec implementations MUST support ESP and MAY support AH. (Support for AH has been downgraded to MAY because experience has shown that there are very few contexts in which ESP cannot provide the requisite security services. Note that ESP can be used to provide only integrity, without confidentiality, making it comparable to AH in most contexts.)" [06:27:04] --- bkhabs has become available [06:27:12] note "IPsec implementations" not "IP implementations" [06:27:43] yep dave, but check out section 10 also. [06:27:51] ADurand suggests defering to the IPsec RFCs and avoiding any IPsec req in the Node req document [06:29:21] dave, and IPsec architecture mandate comes from rfc2460 security considerations section. [06:29:22] ah, thanks pekka [06:29:40] here's the text pekka refers to " All IPv4 IPsec implementations MUST comply with all requirements of this document. All IPv6 implementations MUST comply with all requirements of this document." [06:30:09] John to approach Security ADs [06:30:25] now IPv6 subnet model presentation [06:32:18] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has become available [06:32:58] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has left [06:35:44] --- atarashi has left [06:35:49] --- sureshk has left [06:36:04] --- atarashi has become available [06:36:05] --- sureshk has become available [06:38:28] Chair ask for intended document status [06:38:49] author targetting Std tracks [06:39:03] AD thinks it's Informational [06:39:55] ?? thins it's STD due to use of MUST-ish terminology [06:40:21] --- jiangxingfeng has become available [06:41:11] Dave points out his suggestion are implementation-spec suggestion, like the socket API -> informational [06:41:23] -are+is [06:41:39] --- john.loughney has left [06:43:08] next presentation is... [06:43:14] --- DD has become available [06:43:38] addrsel approaches [06:45:45] --- Suzanne has become available [06:46:04] --- Chip Sharp has become available [06:46:33] --- bob has become available [06:54:34] jinmei: ULAs are easy to fix with another row in the prefix policy table [06:55:44] --- john.zhao has become available [06:56:15] actually a label won't fix it [06:59:42] RFC3484 section 3.1 is scope comparisons, which only mentions IPv6 [06:59:59] ah, section 3.2 mentions scopes for IPv4 [07:00:19] yep that's my problem [07:00:29] the scope aren't supposed to be configurable [07:00:32] +s [07:00:44] yah [07:01:18] results is if you have private IPv4 + 6to4 or private IPv4 + Teredo, and want to reach a dual-stack native server, you'll prefer IPv6 transition [07:01:23] which sucks [07:01:52] and sucks even worse for ULA :( [07:07:42] ENordmark thinks DHCP works, and Q/A has problems [07:08:09] --- elwynd has become available [07:08:55] dthaler points out support for a host using multiple different networks is a requirement [07:11:03] tnarten wants to step back and look at the bigger picture at this point [07:11:38] tnarten is concerned about potential security implications [07:14:39] --- marc.blanchet.qc has become available [07:17:24] dthaler points out different apps have different requirements (reliability, efficiency, etc) [07:22:41] now presenting src addrsel using routing info for IPv6 [07:27:28] --- john.zhao has left: Disconnected. [07:28:12] --- john.zhao has become available [07:30:20] taking questions now [07:34:44] ? pointing out that this breaks existing routing protocol, as they use Link-local addresses for next-hop [07:35:07] several people remark that this is solving a specific problem and not really the real addrsel issue [07:38:17] --- sureshk has left [07:41:08] now presenting... [07:41:43] ...hop by hop options [07:41:45] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/6man-4.pdf [07:53:50] --- jiangxingfeng has left [07:55:41] most people at the mike disagree with deprecating, argue there are other solutions [07:57:41] --- DD has left: Computer went to sleep [07:59:51] --- DD has become available [08:01:29] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/6man-5.pdf [08:05:29] --- john.zhao has left: Computer went to sleep [08:06:02] --- john.zhao has become available [08:10:26] jhw: this is needed to differentiate transport protocols numbers from exthdrs [08:12:46] ErikNordmak: won't solve the problem until we define how to separe proto headers from ext headers [08:12:53] next presentation is... [08:12:57] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/6man-1.pdf [08:13:48] --- wej has become available [08:14:18] pmip6 indication option [08:15:26] --- jiangxingfeng has become available [08:15:59] --- bkhabs has left [08:19:40] --- nishida has left [08:20:19] tnarten ask for document status in netlmm [08:20:34] --> it's an individual submission with no conclusive acceptance in netlmm [08:21:18] tnarten asked what the point is if pmip is supposed to be transparent [08:21:29] --> if host does MIP, it may want to know [08:21:36] it's also needed for inter-access handovers [08:27:28] --- nishida has become available [08:27:33] rdroms ask which working group is targeted [08:27:37] --> don't know yet [08:28:30] --- marc.blanchet.qc has left [08:33:28] --- DD has left [08:33:45] --- john.zhao has left: Computer went to sleep [08:33:49] --- psavola has left [08:34:16] done [08:34:16] --- nishida has left [08:34:19] --- geir has left [08:34:26] --- nm has left [08:34:29] --- rdenisc has left [08:34:33] --- dudi has left [08:34:38] --- ona has left [08:35:00] --- Suzanne has left [08:35:31] --- rhe has left [08:35:32] --- jm has left [08:36:26] --- Chip Sharp has left [08:36:33] --- arifumi has left [08:36:55] --- bob has left [08:36:57] --- miyahiro has left [08:41:12] --- john.zhao has become available [08:41:22] --- wej has left [08:41:45] --- dthaler has left [08:50:57] --- atarashi has left [08:52:21] --- jiangxingfeng has left [08:52:26] --- john.zhao has left [08:58:14] --- sureshk has become available [08:59:05] --- sureshk has left [09:07:19] --- elwynd has left [09:12:35] --- sureshk has become available [09:35:41] --- trond has left: Disconnected [10:28:21] --- sureshk has left: Replaced by new connection [12:19:34] --- dthaler has become available [12:19:36] --- dthaler has left