[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: R41 in draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-07
On Jul 29, 2009, at 16:46, Stark, Barbara wrote:
[I wrote:]
Okay. I'll leave R41 in the draft for now. I think anybody in favor
of removing it should bring rebuttals to the arguments already
provided for leaving it in place. As an individual contributor, I
don't have any.
Fair enough. Here are my arguments.
R41 is not a core part of the simple-security "capability". It is
about
how to manage this capability.
I have to disagree with that. R41 isn't saying you need a management
function. It's saying you need some unspecified application listener
discovery protocol, e.g. draft-woodyatt-ald, etc., as a control-plane
function to facilitate applications that solicit inbound traffic from
unspecified exterior addresses.
[...]
Note that this applies to R42, as well.
This sounds like a big task, though, and maybe not something that a
draft getting ready for Last Call would want to take on. But perhaps
it
could be kept fairly brief. At a minimum, the "Passive Listeners"
section might be moved to a "Management Considerations" section.
I would agree that R42 is a management consideration. Maybe a
management considerations section is a good idea. Now that I've got
some time, I'll look into it.
In any case, I don't think that the 2nd sentence of R41 is
appropriate.
There are many management protocols that are in common use that do not
meet IETF IPR requirements, but that manage IETF-created protocols and
capabilities. Manufacturers of consumer routers will include the
management capabilities that consumers want. If this statement
conflicts
with what consumers want, then this statement will be ignored. Putting
in MUST statements that are likely to be ignored is a bad idea.
I suppose a workable compromise is to just remove the MUST clause from
R41. Would anybody object to that?
--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering