From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Sun Jul 8 07:02:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BED21F84FB for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.684 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.372, BAYES_05=-1.11, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DrIKeknoOkSb for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B979A21F84E6 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 6E0FA3B3F8; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 14:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 165711906A5; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 15:58:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 15:58:05 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: rrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20120708135805.GA12216@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.5 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] Option type for Nonce v6 X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:02:52 -0000 I have a small doubt when rereading draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-05. It says "if an end system receives an IPv6 packet containing this option [Nonce Destination Option], but does not recognise this option, the end system MUST discard the packet and [...] send an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem". But a legacy system won't of course follow the new RFC. The normal mechanism to have this behaviour, with legacy IPv6 systems, is to encode it in the option type (RFC 2460, sections 4.2 and 4.5). But draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-05 does not seem to mention it and just says "IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Destination Option Type value". Shouldn't it be modified to say "IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Destination Option Type value starting with 10"? [This is important because nice coexistence between ILNP-enabled systems and legacy ones depend on receiving an explicit notification that the responder does not support ILNP.] From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Sun Jul 8 07:37:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CAE21F84E2 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.711, BAYES_40=-0.185, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8LG9nLDaRmG2 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40AE21F8460 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 10DA83B3F8; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 14:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 24CE61906A5; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 16:37:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 16:37:43 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: rrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20120708143743.GA17630@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.5 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] Firewalls and good practices X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:37:52 -0000 In , you can read "The use of Identifiers enables firewalls to have access control rules that are based on identity, rather than address or location. This might permit a corporate IT security manager to give the CEO's laptop more privileges than a network-capable ID badge reader, for example." This claim is not reproduced in the current set of I-D and rightly so: because ILNP has no protection of the Identifier (such as ORCHID), it is easy to lie about your Identifier. So, what are the good practices for firewalls with ILNP? The current set of I-D does not mention it (may be it is too early). I would say that, since you can get *some* authentication of the Locator (BCP 38, returnability with protocols like TCP), filtering on the Locator may be a sensible idea while filtering on the Identifier is a very bad one. This would be consistent with the current practice. With Apache, when you write 'Allow from 2001:660:3003::/48', you say "Allow every machine which happens to be connected in this network". You authorize a localisation, not an identity. Do you think it would be a good addition in Security Considerations for future documents? From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Sun Jul 8 08:17:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8760521F84CD for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.827 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.626, BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qIIoeBZ1RCoa for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DDC21F84BD for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 08:17:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 556413B3F6; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 15:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9C7E91906A5; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:15:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:15:33 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: rrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20120708151533.GA23619@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.5 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] Current state of the implementation X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:17:48 -0000 Does anyone know if any implementation of ILNP has been published? I find nothing on . Some presentations like or hint that implementations will be developed (see also but I see nothing published. From tony.li@tony.li Sun Jul 8 10:19:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6266E21F85A8 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zdtk7xkQvWmj for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:19:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE1621F859F for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:19:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta20.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.87]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Xskg1j0061smiN4A1tKflk; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:19:39 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.103] ([98.248.36.188]) by omta20.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id XtKd1j00p43ZcXW8gtKefL; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:19:39 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <20120708151533.GA23619@sources.org> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:19:37 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120708151533.GA23619@sources.org> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] [ILNP] Current state of the implementation X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:19:18 -0000 On Jul 8, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Does anyone know if any implementation of ILNP has been published? I > find nothing on . Some presentations > like > = > or > = > hint that implementations will be developed (see also > = > but I see nothing published. Stephane, I know of two implementations currently in progress, but nothing is = sufficiently baked as to be published yet. Regards, Tony From rja.lists@gmail.com Mon Jul 9 08:00:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558B821F8659 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:00:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiZdk+iEHLIB for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9737C21F8699 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcsg15 with SMTP id g15so7610443qcs.13 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=TfS511avJVCcAvw4fDrcZWJ9W9N+60RSpptd8/Wh690=; b=YrDNLHd4hSBS+MBGWY5Fs3wlamRZkR/0EBPp7xOghsEQ+UHVv52EneFcJM+uKkthyI Tw0qfnJPZxTU+rZ8kR2+qWwqGRk5B72ObxuA87gssoSv0pl/IotTIBkPYfH6Ric70eOz S0X6YTFfbYj9zqUcPrXVKkrH3TG/mWmcC42BGniQamFKJB22wkLodFzJcMLHVrfLtufP xLn0gm9+9epBSmTN+8Q/SkT+CNmJvaxIztmkBhsqVloj/+kxeev1eJPUDJEe7PiuOeva CWmQ4Ii12kithow8V4AjL/5DgWXRG81VHeRJXRi56Tx0+V4HN435stcCL2CeKEIespvi BCAw== Received: by 10.224.58.137 with SMTP id g9mr72604688qah.83.1341846049245; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.12] (pool-74-110-100-136.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [74.110.100.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gb7sm61913061qab.12.2012.07.09.08.00.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:00:48 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:00:46 -0400 Message-Id: <2AF59B53-AE2A-468A-A903-55F4CAC51E48@gmail.com> To: IRTF Routing RG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: Re: [rrg] [ILNP] Current state of the implementation X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:00:35 -0000 Stephane, A proof-of-concept overlay implementation was done a while back. =20 In fact, some aspects of the current ILNP protocol specifications=20 (e.g. having acknowledgements for Locator Updates) were driven=20 in part by experimental results from that overlay proof-of-concept=20 implementation. So far as I know, that overlay is not publicly=20 available at present. =20 Results from that overlay implementation were reported, in part,=20 in a paper in IEEE MILCOM 2011: = I understand that there are two independent implementations=20 of ILNP underway at present, one in FreeBSD and another in Linux. =20 I am not part of either implementation team. Of course, from an IRTF (or IETF) perspective, there is=20 no requirement for a freely distributable implementation. =20 Clearly, it would be pleasant if one or more did exist,=20 so that a wider array of folks could validate ILNP operation=20 for themselves. Cheers, Ran From rja.lists@gmail.com Mon Jul 9 08:31:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7297611E80A2 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q-UJ4WwP18wg for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f47.google.com (mail-qa0-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CE011E808C for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qabg1 with SMTP id g1so1682795qab.13 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:32:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=XjgejM4zzMNMcgrXxVHTqEmyc9oAI75wPaT/KuacqhQ=; b=hDpbNC14uGikBfTKi75yTi+actLgBzDiyeLXGoQJwd66Ix9fGXjzh/QGHkYp/REqL9 UC5yfZEwiBp3YGUbcIDeWqLyASM6g1OjFjXZ8JsXYHA2NzM6UxiEiDvXapMZapKtQpRn RYI6PypWizxC/04g+MrZ+C3+XMKFBFMkc28lRzLTGxyjZB8im44ZJRuHXWNJ0gLh7sNx M0oqK8KepeZhgvqc/9Yb+7yAvDDePwvhJZKfmwN8EDybb7lD6KZZAzBbvrDn+/yajIf8 ddGj/qi3lXA7GMSfN/zyT3ABSZw8HO3ngcsOYRY4Wy48DLESIV7bbpVyAibvbKIR+kC/ PMnA== Received: by 10.224.32.205 with SMTP id e13mr57986689qad.69.1341847926436; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.12] (pool-74-110-100-136.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [74.110.100.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cg7sm62012822qab.19.2012.07.09.08.32.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:32:03 -0400 Message-Id: <6A72F33C-98DB-4AD3-99EE-53497A5342C8@gmail.com> To: IRTF Routing RG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] Firewalls and good practices X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:31:42 -0000 Earlier, Stephane Bortzmeyer quoted this text: >> "The use of Identifiers enables firewalls to have access >> control rules that are based on identity, rather than address or >> location. This might permit a corporate IT security manager to give >> the CEO's laptop more privileges than a network-capable ID badge >> reader, for example." In the same note, Stephane Bortzmeyer commented: > This claim is not reproduced in the current set of I-D and rightly so: > because ILNP has no protection of the Identifier (such as ORCHID), > it is easy to lie about your Identifier. It is straight-forward to authenticate the Identifier/packet binding. 1) ILNP does support use of cryptographically-generated identifiers using the same mechanisms as have been specified for IPv6 Cryptographically-Generated Addresses (CGAs). For example, the mechanism in RFC-3972 can be used with ILNPv6. If one has a SEND implementation deployed, it also should be possible to use this with ILNPv6 as ND is not changed by ILNPv6. 2) Separately, the current set of I-Ds clearly specify how IPsec can be used with ILNP and also specify how ILNP IPsec differs from classic IPsec. In turn, ILNP IPsec AH can be used to cryptographically authenticate the binding of a particular Identifier value with a particular ILNP packet. Separate IETF work is underway to enable IPsec-related public key information to be stored in the DNS. Existing IETF standards specify DNS Security. DNSsec implementations are readily available now (e.g. BIND, others). DNSsec deployments in the global Internet appear to be growing rapidly. So it is straight-forward to cryptographically authenticate the Identifier value in a packet in an operational situation where that might be desirable. Situations where a firewall (or other security gateway) would examine a packet and authenticate the identifier(s) present in that packet (whether an IP address or an ILNP Identifier or something else) generally fall into the category of Intermediate Network Authentication -- since the security gateway is not one of the endpoints in the communications session. Some approaches to Intermediate Network Authentication, including the use of AH with an asymmetric digital signature, are covered by US Patent 5,511,122. This patent's existence has been disclosed, more than once, to the IETF, including a disclosure to the IETF IPsec WG mailing list back in 1996. The inventor on that patent has not been involved in any IETF work specifying use of AH with asymmetric digital signatures (e.g. RFC-4359). While I believe the quoted text at very top (i.e, about ILNP enabling identity-based authorisation/access-control) is still correct, it did not seem essential to document that optional capability as part of the current ILNP protocol specifications, while adding that description to the current ILNP protocol documents would have added procedural complexity to the publication process for the ILNP document set (e.g. due to IPR considerations). Yours, Ran From rja.lists@gmail.com Mon Jul 9 08:41:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C5011E80EB for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nV5WcQ9eQQcP for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C36311E80EA for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcsg15 with SMTP id g15so7663722qcs.13 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:41:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=8beXL+clQL20WkCuYFQ2Da+JXUhVzbDUUNbGOJXkQRM=; b=zkvHY6SN1JCZ1nIHulmTM++bj/SBVNHpPnB9j676z8+d2CYSMF0ffQEZoo4k06EOMh st+L5pzj9GhrfROBUGOOrKiWUiHph/iRzR53mlN8lgiHRglx6f079RUUdV9AUyeWTu5L 8lrK7SAzAZpza2Iv4xlWgvim1W/88UTvyDvEHIUmIGam6DUWYWbZRixxlM8ZCjWY+uFe 5ii2whnMNYV+aWGsDZnYc933BvlIs8DNQrozdrswsM4FjJQ2OjXhBQoOzwoo1/TnMLU7 9DwrwwD2ZZcXKrp7lvNhJXTU9LE9WxQsmk3a3g8azua6buMnaocxDrrS/p4j6b7PZAql uXew== Received: by 10.229.105.141 with SMTP id t13mr20476500qco.118.1341848500260; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.12] (pool-74-110-100-136.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [74.110.100.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o7sm49361306qaq.17.2012.07.09.08.41.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:41:39 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:41:37 -0400 Message-Id: To: IRTF Routing RG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] Option type for Nonce v6 X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:41:16 -0000 Earlier, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote, in part: > I have a small doubt when rereading draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-05. > It says "if an end system receives an IPv6 packet containing this > option [Nonce Destination Option], but does not recognise this option, > the end system MUST discard the packet and [...] send an ICMPv6 > Parameter Problem". But a legacy system won't of course follow the new RFC. Legacy systems WILL, of course, comply with the long-standing IPv6 specifications, which encode the specified behaviour into the high-order bits of the IPv6 Option number. > The normal mechanism to have this behaviour, with legacy IPv6 systems, > is to encode it in the option type (RFC 2460, sections 4.2 and > 4.5). But draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-05 does not seem to mention it > and just says "IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Destination > Option Type value". Shouldn't it be modified to say "IANA is requested > to assign a new IPv6 Destination Option Type value starting with 10"? IANA reviewed the ILNP I-Ds as part of the IESG review process. There is no need to have worry or doubt that IANA will allocate the right kind of IPv6 option number when the time comes. The authors are happy to examine the current text once again, but we have full confidence in IANA. Cheers, Ran From lars@netapp.com Wed Jul 11 01:48:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5276921F84F5; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FEHNjMwSvxLE; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C579C21F8507; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:48:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,566,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="661584356" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2012 01:48:22 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q6B8mLRL013887; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:48:21 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: RFC Editor Thread-Topic: Request to publish the draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-* cluster Thread-Index: AQHNX0HsQa7gTBwW9EyhRyEBHROd+Q== Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:48:20 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_91CEF35F-74A9-45BA-BA1B-B34C72F4E22A"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rrg@irtf.org" , "iana@iana.org" , Internet Research Steering Group Subject: [rrg] Request to publish the draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-* cluster X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:48:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_91CEF35F-74A9-45BA-BA1B-B34C72F4E22A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, RFC Editor, please publish the following cluster of I-Ds as RFCs on the IRTF Stream. = See the respective documents for their intended status. (IANA CC'ed for = information, as some documents request IANA actions.) draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-06 =20 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch-06 =20 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-07 (yes, -07 - the other ones are = all -06) draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-06 =20 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-06 =20 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4-06=20 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-06=20 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-06 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts-06=20 The documents have been approved for publication by the IRSG and also = received an RFC5742 review by the IESG. For those documents that request = allocation of codepoints from IANA, the IESG has approved those = allocations as part of their review. See = http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/42 for details and = history. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Tony Li = (tony.li@tony.li). Thanks, Lars= --Apple-Mail=_91CEF35F-74A9-45BA-BA1B-B34C72F4E22A Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDcxMTA4NDgyMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFIzc mrtAAJ0xQaNOqMnGH1vv52v0MIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBADKjRWmp k8W3xwDUGT7p8kTuEhQgEQFq27YFA7jQochYXWZIlE/6j6G1b2OfSYtUYuZHUVfpgQe9iBgkPjTW pESiqo5tHKJO2FCeIWG56Xk7sn7/oV2xPZ0cDQhSQX34q8/UPf4p47jEkc5KwgPXLhuFVf0sVXt2 8Fxz39niqC4Ad1kkUkmQ2wQfRQmXRXX+p9oy9aNSziVOyzil7tqN0RlT8mK0FA2FMvDVOKshhhtg 7NimY1tZiVeXLuJxHsi7wbS2BvY1bf8FFqYohrniGaFCsJtk1T7pxcR10j2HOd3V+CP4MxkiZSNh bjfKWDSBRh6TVH9WSiBSRQwJJY1XhMAAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_91CEF35F-74A9-45BA-BA1B-B34C72F4E22A-- From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Wed Jul 11 01:54:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3626021F85A1 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:54:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.975 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.475, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pcgQh-eFmDk4 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [192.134.4.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104B621F8505 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id A0770280430; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:54:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA252801B2; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:54:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2219:8::6:69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904CBB38038; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:53:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:53:56 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: "Eggert, Lars" Message-ID: <20120711085356.GA27188@nic.fr> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid X-Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-686-pae i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Request to publish the draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-* cluster X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:54:39 -0000 On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:48:20AM +0000, Eggert, Lars wrote a message of 138 lines which said: > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-06 I do not understand: > 2.4.2 LP RR Presentation Format > ... > The domain name MUST NOT be compressed. Compression has a meaning for the wire format but not for the presentation format. From rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org Wed Jul 11 10:25:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F06411E8118; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GsX8QVhMxaBN; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD9E11E8101; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 6000) id 5EEF6B1E002; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:25:44 -0700 From: RFC Editor To: "Eggert, Lars" Message-ID: <20120711172544.GC24591@rfc-editor.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: RFC Editor , "rrg@irtf.org" , Internet Research Steering Group Subject: Re: [rrg] Request to publish the draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-* cluster X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:25:23 -0000 Greetings, We have added the documents below to our online queue at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. RFC Editor/sg On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:48:20AM +0000, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, RFC Editor, > > please publish the following cluster of I-Ds as RFCs on the IRTF Stream. See the respective documents for their intended status. (IANA CC'ed for information, as some documents request IANA actions.) > > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-06 > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch-06 > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-07 (yes, -07 - the other ones are all -06) > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-06 > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-06 > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4-06 > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-06 > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-06 > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts-06 > > The documents have been approved for publication by the IRSG and also received an RFC5742 review by the IESG. For those documents that request allocation of codepoints from IANA, the IESG has approved those allocations as part of their review. See http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/42 for details and history. > > Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Tony Li (tony.li@tony.li). > > Thanks, > Lars From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Mon Jul 16 06:48:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2083D21F8842 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:48:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.133 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmHMSPCbLIJQ for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [192.134.4.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807D221F883D for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 29246280292 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:49:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258272801BD for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:49:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2219:8::6:69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231DD4C007F for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:48:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:48:31 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: rrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20120716134830.GB15195@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid X-Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-686-pae i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] What to do when Locator Updates are lost X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:48:51 -0000 Another philosophical question on ILNP. draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-06 and draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-06 do not mention what to do when a Locator Update (which is, after all, just an ordinary ICMP message) is lost. There is no mention of retrying (DNS-style). Retrying could be triggered by the absence of a Locator Update Acknowledgement but both drafts say nothing about the use of Acknowledgements. draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-06 says: Hence, the node that has had all previously valid Locators become invalid MUST include the Nonce Option with the appropriate nonce value in all packets (data or otherwise) to all correspondents for at least 3 round-trip times for each correspondent. [...] This 'gratuitous authentication' ensures that the correspondent can authenticate any received packet, even if the ICMP Locator Update control message arrives and is processed AFTER some other packet using the new Source Locator(s). But this covers only the case where the Locator Update is delayed, not the case where it is lost. Or should a node update its ILCC when receving these 'gratuitous authentication' packets with a new Source Locator? I do not find any explicit mention of it. From ran.atkinson@gmail.com Tue Jul 17 13:17:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B30C21F8663 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1lV7v9QmAQMs for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C716421F8621 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcsg15 with SMTP id g15so663107qcs.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=o1qgXN+vIWLxKcOLlaklw1cFqSvKK35d18jenW3vHLk=; b=MOgU0YSekmIoSBxvJv5uPkCxZ22YFbLirbaia08OENgMZwbGnEHgHwyf45baNIQqRv KVazE8iZ+kFHGROapEjB29tg7iTkTgnwxbJlNlrVariOS5RdgddD5vahIintg/EuqO9G R3+ouXFj9CKdNIK7NPXFSjkXTHJsP9SLos8iXoE0M18lHlf+WmcGleXhzfMlZ168RDRX UX/Zi0vUCuB+4r+R0Aqd6njqi4swF50QAS7aR3ZrT5BEkR5Qg4iCMZWys4hMy8SXswj1 jXxa64iqh1tiIoe9ovXfRL/RbhnyM0prgUmkh1B6ZVMytZHSfxXFGk9kRzl5gx/Our+x VA9g== Received: by 10.224.203.8 with SMTP id fg8mr1617936qab.38.1342556307432; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.12] (pool-74-110-100-136.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [74.110.100.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id et8sm27725423qab.9.2012.07.17.13.18.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:18:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Ran Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:18:23 -0400 Message-Id: <9ACA09DB-4312-4CAB-8AC7-647903749F87@gmail.com> To: IRTF Routing RG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] What to do when Locator Updates are lost X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:17:40 -0000 Hi, ICMP Locator Updates are acknowledged. If the sender doesn't receive an acknowledgement from a correspondent, then the sender knows that either (more likely) the correspondent hasn't seen the ICMP Locator Update message yet or (less likely) the ICMP LU ACK was lost. So an unacknowledged LU is sufficient information for the sender to realise that it ought to resend the LU to the correspondent node. The precise frequency and interval of retransmissions for LU messages is difficult to specify in a precise and correct manner absent more operational experience with ILNP implementations. So we've left that detail for a future specification revision, when there is enough experience to recommend a specific retransmission interval/scheme for LU messages/ACKs. A single received packet that authenticates due to the Nonce option is not sufficient information to know whether or not the previously-known set of Locators remain valid or not. All the receiver knows is that that one Source Locator is valid. So I would not recommend deleting other Locators for that correspondent node from an ILCC instance on the basis of a single received packet. While the ILNP drafts were available for a good while, to give people time to review and comment, the authors have been told very explicitly that no specification edits are allowed at this time. A few implementer-driven clarifications made it in between -05 and -06, but no protocol changes occurred then either. We do welcome questions and feedback, but we can't edit the current ILNP I-Ds, since they are in the RFC Editor queue. Thanks very much, Ran From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Wed Jul 18 01:28:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E90B21F873C for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vEHvSj+vCtzv for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [192.134.4.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BE921F873A for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 676EA2802FA; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:29:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CD62802D6; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:29:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2219:8::6:69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5680F4C007F; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:28:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:28:38 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Ran Atkinson Message-ID: <20120718082838.GA4647@nic.fr> References: <9ACA09DB-4312-4CAB-8AC7-647903749F87@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9ACA09DB-4312-4CAB-8AC7-647903749F87@gmail.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid X-Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-686-pae i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: IRTF Routing RG Subject: Re: [rrg] [ILNP] What to do when Locator Updates are lost X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:28:53 -0000 On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 04:18:23PM -0400, Ran Atkinson wrote a message of 47 lines which said: > The precise frequency and interval of retransmissions for LU > messages is difficult to specify in a precise and correct manner > absent more operational experience with ILNP implementations. So > we've left that detail for a future specification revision, Makes sense. And I understand it is too late to add anything in the draft. Keep it in mind for a future revision? It is an interesting problem. > the authors have been told very explicitly that no specification > edits are allowed at this time. It does not prevent to fix the "compression" bug in draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-06, I presume? From rja.lists@gmail.com Thu Jul 19 04:18:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFAFF21F8789 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:18:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qzdSGAAqKV3d for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com (mail-qc0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A5421F8594 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcpx40 with SMTP id x40so1598866qcp.40 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:19:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=4aHLkF1CJ/h2Mjz8WiyQAbc/kMArL8ElODmEanji2Gw=; b=N0yOJrv38IbbbFZYA5xA5ip8dOI3SoFl/92Uj23VpCWCytDh9HSkX2dR+9j0X+fpbX TogZ/5V+871Et036RxzJ/DFYEP4R8uAMv2xRJOzs95A51rT36HgulOrqEvqKzGLYj/8F U7xi9OVjNKT8k8MrLh/9amgDUJThwu6zN06hRmCS33qmrKyu0/OKYCRHKtvDU2sSa8eE SAg4XXRdT29QMBO2IHDlX1YkhCPz0pqgqXZGjEZAf8VQk5gDmMdTYFp4KJEGSOFHi7Y+ zcyowi95SiSsZa4bkdLPFi04g72tG1+kB/kUsoBnbxLejdRktsRAzJRXu6LnHOGCvASS azyw== Received: by 10.224.218.200 with SMTP id hr8mr2910929qab.82.1342696791082; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.12] (pool-74-110-100-136.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [74.110.100.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i5sm2732450qak.11.2012.07.19.04.19.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:19:50 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:19:53 -0400 Message-Id: <360735AC-6883-4ED1-8B8D-54B8B39B2CB8@gmail.com> To: IRTF Routing RG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [rrg] ILNP protocol code points allocated X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:18:59 -0000 Hi, IANA has now allocated the ILNP-related protocol code points. These are visible on the IANA.org web site. This information might be useful to implementers. ILNPv6 Locator Update Message (156): ILNPv6 Nonce Destination Option (0x8b): ILNP-related DNS Resource Records (104 - 107): ILNPv4 uses a pre-defined experimental value from RFC-4727: Cheers, Ran