RE: [rfc2461bis] Security issues

["Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman at flarion.com>]

James,

Thank you for the review. 

 > 1) Much of what is in the Section 11.1 seems a summary of 
 > RFC 3756. On the
 > one hand, I suppose it is helpful to refresh the reader's 
 > memory, on the
 > other, it could shorten the spec and make for less reading. 
 > It's just a
 > stylistic issue.

=> ok.

 > 2) Regarding in Section 11.1 last paragraph:
 > 
 >    many of the threats discussed in this section are less
 >    effective, or non-existent, on point-to-point links, or cellular
 >    links where hosts share links with one neighbor, i.e. the default
 >    router.
 > 
 > I thought 2461 explicitly did not apply to point to point links or
 > point-to-point like links such as cellphones, and other 
 > links that were NBMA
 > (speaking of which, I suppose the actual NBMA technology has 
 > been worked out
 > by now, so the statement in Section 1 paragraph 2 about NBMA 
 > being FFS might
 > be obsolete and, if so, could be replaced by a reference to 
 > the RFC where
 > that is described).

=> I'm not aware of restrictions for ND on cellular links.
For instance, RFCs 3314 and 3316 talk about address config
and ND on 3GPP links, which are a good example of those 
point to point-like links. Sure there is no multicast 
capability but ND works fine. 

Hesham

 > 
 > The discussion of IPsec in Section 11.2 looks fine.
 > 
 >             jak
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > From: "Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman at flarion.com>
 > To: <ipv6 at ietf.org>
 > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:48 AM
 > Subject: [rfc2461bis] Security issues
 > 
 > 
 > Folks,
 > 
 > I'm formally addressing the issues left for 2461bis.
 > All the issues were either resolved or agreed on in
 > the meeting. The next series of emails are to inform
 > the list about the resolutions that we already agreed
 > on and see if there are any comments before I close the
 > issues.
 > 
 > The security issues were regarding:
 > - Use of IPsec
 > - Relation to SEND
 > 
 > The current draft includes the following:
 > 
 > - Removed suggestions for using IPsec to secure ND
 > - A discussion on IPsec and when it might be useful
 > - Expanded the security considerations section to include
 >   more threats and pros and cons of using IPsec
 > - Referenced threats and solutions drafts in SEND.
 > 
 > Please read the current draft, in particular sections
 > 3.3 and 11 to see all the changes. If there are no
 > objections I'll close this issue.
 > 
 > Hesham
 > 
 > ===========================================================
 > This email may contain confidential and privileged material 
 > for the sole use
 >  of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is
 > strictly
 >  prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please 
 > contact the
 > sender
 >  and delete all copies.
 > ===========================================================
 > 
 > 
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
 > ipv6 at ietf.org
 > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 
 > 
 > 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------