From jari.arkko@piuha.net Mon Aug 24 00:46:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372B53A6A5F for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:46:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.809 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8-URScFiTz-0 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660643A689A for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EA2198676; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:02 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8y+y7-cyJgLC; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:01 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FE81985FB; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:01 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4A924575.8020707@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:01 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan References: <4A55E27D.80200@piuha.net> <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> <6983BF97BFC24D4EA551F140712329180119373E@melmail.netstarnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dna@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: DNA working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:46:57 -0000 This is just a reminder -- we are very near in getting this document shipped. Lets get the final details agreed, a new draft posted so that we can focus on other stuff. Jari From jari.arkko@piuha.net Mon Aug 24 00:47:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C873A6DC2 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:47:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.806 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7O26kScWOvd1 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B383A6DBC for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A882F198687; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:07 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROuWt7Ifn66i; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:07 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39402198676; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:07 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4A92457A.80009@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:47:06 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan References: <4A55E27D.80200@piuha.net> <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dna@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dna-simple@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: DNA working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:47:02 -0000 Suresh, > I will try to add more text regarding manually configured addresses. My preference would be to leave explicitly state that DNAv6 does not apply to such addresses. I don't really see the use case to begin with... Jari From jari.arkko@piuha.net Mon Aug 24 00:52:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166DB3A6BD8 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.803 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQVrVm7CcpfU for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1602F3A6B62 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF94D198668; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:52:51 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 971VFKqt15G3; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:52:51 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D7A1985FB; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:52:51 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4A9246D2.60704@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:52:50 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba , Suresh Krishnan References: <4A55E27D.80200@piuha.net> <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> <6983BF97BFC24D4EA551F140712329180119373E@melmail.netstarnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dna@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dna-simple@tools.ietf.org, gdaley@netstarnetworks.com Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: DNA working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:52:47 -0000 Bernard, Suresh, Greg, > That brings up another point -- security. The DNAv4 document states > that DNA is not appropriate for use in situations where security is > required -- such as where DHCP authentication would be used. > > So if you're looking to secure configuration with SEND or authenticated > DHCPv6, does it make sense to use DNA? The existing draft already talks about the "stickiness" of SEND configuration -- you wait longer to lose your SEND router. I think this is sufficient and in line with the thinking in RFC 3971, which emphasizes the ability to work in mixed environments. However, there is no text associated with DHCPv6 security or interaction of ND/DHCPv6 security. Perhaps something is needed there as well. Jari From bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Mon Aug 24 21:16:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56F828C1D2 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:16:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.025 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.573, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HZ3RfTXTjGVJ for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc2-s13.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s13.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B0B28C340 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU137-W31 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s13.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:16:31 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_85200a1b-2a91-4d70-b3e2-8b81b3906fcf_" X-Originating-IP: [12.42.66.130] From: Bernard Aboba To: Jari Arkko , Suresh Krishnan Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:16:31 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4A92457A.80009@piuha.net> References: <4A55E27D.80200@piuha.net> <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> <4A92457A.80009@piuha.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2009 04:16:31.0942 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3743660:01CA253A] Cc: dna@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dna-simple@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: DNA working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:16:26 -0000 --_85200a1b-2a91-4d70-b3e2-8b81b3906fcf_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In DNAv4 we examined the use case of switching between manually configured = addresses. =20 This is something that could not be done prior to DNAv4=2C but is possible = with it.=20 However=2C it became clear that there were some problems: 1. DNA probe retransmission strategy. In typical situations little or no r= etransmission of DNA probes is required=2C since if the probes are lost=2C = the normal dynamic assignment mechanisms (with their retransmission schemes= ) will still function. However=2C if the address is assigned manually=2C t= he dynamic assignment alternative may not be available. Therefore DNA prob= e retransmission needs to be more aggressive=2C or else risk not assigning = an address at all=2C or possibly (see below) assigning the wrong address.=20 2. Where an address is assigned manually in one network but dynamically ass= igned on another=2C it is necessary for the host to use dynamic assignment = mechanisms=2C in case it turns out to be attached to a network on which dyn= amic assignment is practiced. However=2C when it is attached to the "manua= l assignment" network using both DNA probes and dynamic assignment=2C this = could result in the host obtaining two valid addresses -- a "manual" and a = "dynamic" one. In that case=2C the standard advice of "take the dynamicall= y assigned address if it conflicts with the DNA probe result" is no longer = valid -- a manually assigned address needs to take priority. One might als= o argue that when attached to a "manual" network=2C dynamic assignment mech= anisms should be treated as a confirmed probe=2C in that once connection to= the "manual" network is confirmed=2C the manual address should be plumbed= =2C and the dynamic address should be thrown away.=20 Given these issues=2C the DNAv4 document cites some of the above concerns a= nd recommends against use for manual addressing. If and when manual addres= sing is implemented for DNAv4=2C we will probably learn enough to provide s= ome guidance about how it can be done effectively. But we don't appear to = have that understanding now.=20 My recommendation for the DNAv6 document would be to include a small sectio= n outlining the above concerns for DNAv6=2C indicating that manual addressi= ng is NOT RECOMMENDED. =20 > Date: Mon=2C 24 Aug 2009 10:47:06 +0300 > From: jari.arkko@piuha.net > To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com > CC: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com=3B draft-ietf-dna-simple@tools.ietf.org=3B = dna@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple >=20 > Suresh=2C >=20 > > I will try to add more text regarding manually configured addresses. >=20 > My preference would be to leave explicitly state that DNAv6 does not=20 > apply to such addresses. I don't really see the use case to begin with... >=20 > Jari >=20 --_85200a1b-2a91-4d70-b3e2-8b81b3906fcf_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In DNAv4 we examined the use case of switching between manually configured = addresses. =3B =3B

This is something that could not be done= prior to DNAv4=2C but is possible with it.

However=2C it became cl= ear that there were some problems:

1. DNA probe retransmission strat= egy. =3B In typical situations little or no retransmission of DNA probe= s is required=2C since if the probes are lost=2C the normal dynamic assignm= ent mechanisms (with their retransmission schemes) will still function.&nbs= p=3B However=2C if the address is assigned manually=2C the dynamic assignme= nt alternative may not be available. =3B Therefore DNA probe retransmis= sion needs to be more aggressive=2C or else risk not assigning an address a= t all=2C or possibly (see below) assigning the wrong address.

2. Wh= ere an address is assigned manually in one network but dynamically assigned= on another=2C it is necessary for the host to use dynamic assignment mecha= nisms=2C in case it turns out to be attached to a network on which dynamic = assignment is practiced. =3B However=2C when it is attached to the "man= ual assignment" network using both DNA probes and dynamic assignment=2C thi= s could result in the host obtaining two valid addresses -- a "manual" and = a "dynamic" one. =3B In that case=2C the standard advice of "take the d= ynamically assigned address if it conflicts with the DNA probe result" is n= o longer valid -- a manually assigned address needs to take priority. = =3B One might also argue that when attached to a "manual" network=2C dynami= c assignment mechanisms should be treated as a confirmed probe=2C in that o= nce connection to the "manual" network is confirmed=2C the manual address s= hould be plumbed=2C and the dynamic address should be thrown away.

= Given these issues=2C the DNAv4 document cites some of the above concerns a= nd recommends against use for manual addressing. =3B If and when manual= addressing is implemented for DNAv4=2C we will probably learn enough to pr= ovide some guidance about how it can be done effectively. =3B But we do= n't appear to have that understanding now.

My recommendation for th= e DNAv6 document would be to include a small section outlining the above co= ncerns for DNAv6=2C indicating that manual addressing is NOT RECOMMENDED.&n= bsp=3B




=


>=3B Date: Mon=2C 24 Aug 2009 10:47:06 = +0300
>=3B From: jari.arkko@piuha.net
>=3B To: suresh.krishnan@er= icsson.com
>=3B CC: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com=3B draft-ietf-dna-simple= @tools.ietf.org=3B dna@ietf.org
>=3B Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of d= raft-ietf-dna-simple
>=3B
>=3B Suresh=2C
>=3B
>=3B &g= t=3B I will try to add more text regarding manually configured addresses.>=3B
>=3B My preference would be to leave explicitly state that D= NAv6 does not
>=3B apply to such addresses. I don't really see the us= e case to begin with...
>=3B
>=3B Jari
>=3B
= --_85200a1b-2a91-4d70-b3e2-8b81b3906fcf_-- From bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Mon Aug 24 21:25:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA35C3A6942 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:25:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.607, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WV4QlwtdHo+9 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc2-s1.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s1.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063963A69BB for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU137-W25 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s1.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:25:15 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_77397056-a112-457d-a6dd-96c90cbb6154_" X-Originating-IP: [12.42.66.130] From: Bernard Aboba To: Jari Arkko , Suresh Krishnan Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:25:15 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4A9246D2.60704@piuha.net> References: <4A55E27D.80200@piuha.net> <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> <6983BF97BFC24D4EA551F140712329180119373E@melmail.netstarnetworks.com> <4A9246D2.60704@piuha.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2009 04:25:15.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BA07110:01CA253C] Cc: dna@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dna-simple@tools.ietf.org, gdaley@netstarnetworks.com Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: DNA working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:25:10 -0000 --_77397056-a112-457d-a6dd-96c90cbb6154_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jari said:=20 > There is no text associated with DHCPv6 security or interaction=20 > of ND/DHCPv6 security. Perhaps something is needed there as well. The basic question is how the host should behave in situations where securi= ty is available. For example=2C where SEND is available=2C but not DHCPv6 s= ecurity=2C is it always appropriate to prefer the DHCPv6-assigned address? = One one hand=2C the address determined from SEND is "more secure"=3B on t= he other hand=2C it is also possible that the DHCPv6-assigned address=2C al= beit without security=2C is correct (e.g. DHCPv6 server might have lost sta= te and assigned the address to someone else=2C now suggests another one). = =20 Where DHCPv6 security is available=2C but not SEND=2C it would probably mak= e sense to prefer the DHCPv6-assigned address. Since the document already = says that=2C much more may not be needed=2C except to point out that the ho= st could end up with an "insecure" address for a short period of time.=20 --_77397056-a112-457d-a6dd-96c90cbb6154_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jari said:

>=3B There is no text associated with DHCPv6 security = or interaction
>=3B of ND/DHCPv6 security. Perhaps something is neede= d there as well.

The basic question is how the host should behave in= situations where security is available. For example=2C where SEND is avail= able=2C but not DHCPv6 security=2C is it always appropriate to prefer the D= HCPv6-assigned address? =3B One one hand=2C the address determined from= SEND is "more secure"=3B =3B on the other hand=2C it is also possible = that the DHCPv6-assigned address=2C albeit without security=2C is correct (= e.g. DHCPv6 server might have lost state and assigned the address to someon= e else=2C now suggests another one). =3B

Where DHCPv6 security = is available=2C but not SEND=2C it would probably make sense to prefer the = DHCPv6-assigned address. =3B Since the document already says that=2C mu= ch more may not be needed=2C except to point out that the host could end up= with an "insecure" address for a short period of time.
= --_77397056-a112-457d-a6dd-96c90cbb6154_-- From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Tue Aug 25 17:58:36 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A523A7026 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:58:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ilDJPEfzxRS for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699903A702B for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7Q0wY3B017038; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:58:35 -0500 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.53]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:57:59 -0500 Received: from [142.133.10.113] ([142.133.10.113]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:57:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4A948869.7040801@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:57:13 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jari Arkko References: <4A55E27D.80200@piuha.net> <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> <6983BF97BFC24D4EA551F140712329180119373E@melmail.netstarnetworks.com> <4A924575.8020707@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <4A924575.8020707@piuha.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2009 00:57:58.0937 (UTC) FILETIME=[4129A890:01CA25E8] Cc: dna@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: DNA working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:58:36 -0000 Hi Jari, We will try to ship out a new revision next week after we agree on the proposed fixes. Thanks Suresh On 09-08-24 03:47 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > This is just a reminder -- we are very near in getting this document > shipped. Lets get the final details agreed, a new draft posted so that > we can focus on other stuff. > > Jari >