RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-04

["Gunter Van de Velde \(gvandeve\)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>]

I was wondering on the message we agree upon here for this particular
point, so we can work on a re-write?

<>
NAT does provide a feeling of security that should not be there, however
with IPv6 people will receive more indicative signals on more secure
topologies for their infrastructure/applications/OperatingSoftware?
<>

G/


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:50 PM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Jari Arkko
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-04

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>> the right place to define a new untraceable addressing mechanim.
>>
>>
>> It certainly can't purport to be a formal spec. But removing it would

>> leave a hole. Would you be OK with adding some clear disclaimer text 
>> saying that it is not a formal spec?
> 
> 
> I can live with that.
> 
>>
>>>  >   o  On a local network, any user will have more security
awareness.
>>>  >      This awareness will motivate the usage of simple firewall
>>>  >      applications/devices to be inserted on the border between
the
>>>  >      external network and the local (or home network) as there
is no
>>>  >      Address Translator and hence no false safety perception.
>>> [Substantive] IPv6 will not make users have more security awareness.
>>> When we say something like this, we are emitting the same type of 
>>> marketing hype that we deride in the vendors of NAT products.  This 
>>> bullet should just be omitted.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it's a bit slack, and naive about the way real users behave.
> 
> 
> Based on your indication that there are two issues that you are not 
> going to fix, I gather you aren't going to fix this one, even though 
> you agree that it is slack and naive?  Why not?

That's really not what I meant. I think this text does need fixing.
I'm a bit reluctant to delete it because I think there is a nugget of
value in there. But we authors need to get together; I can't speak for
the others.

     Brian