[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-teredo-security-concerns-02



While almost all of the points in this document are valid,
I have many comments (66 of them, not including the grammatical
corrections) on the text in this document.
Attached is a PDF with my comments in context.

My most general feedback can be summed up with:

It would be better to either recast this document as a "Tunnel
Security Concerns" document, or to split it into two docs or
sections, one for Teredo and one for generic tunneling issues.
Personally, I would find it most useful as two separate docs,
so that the first can be referenced from other "<blah> Security
Concerns" docs that might be specific to other tunneling protocols.
As is, I believe the current doc organization is harmful in two respects:
1) It may lead people to people that other tunneling protocols are
more secure than they really are if they believe the lack of a
similar statement/document means they don't have the problem.
2) It creates more work for the IETF when doing a "<blah> security
Concerns" document for another tunneling protocol, since all the
same points have to be repeated.

-Dave

Attachment: draft-ietf-v6ops-teredo-security-concerns-02.pdf
Description: draft-ietf-v6ops-teredo-security-concerns-02.pdf