Re: draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops discussion

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2010-07-21 05:41, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> The draft doesn't recommend a choice of technique. I think that for the work to go forward, the WG would need to agree on a recommendation. Otherwise, the world will shrug its shoulders.
> 
> Following up on Brian's excellent review. Let's discuss this. In view of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines and draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns, do we need this draft? Should we prefer it to one of the others? Is there something specific we would like this document to recommend?


The word 'loop' does not occur in draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns, from
which I deduce that draft-nakibly covers a disjoint problem space. I suppose
in theory the two documents could be merged, but from a practical viewpoint
it seems better to keep them separate.

Also, I think draft-nakibly is too specific to consider it as really
intersecting with draft-arkko. Whatever models we recommend in draft-arkko,
some people will be running automatic tunnels for years, so the exposure
to loops will exist. Actually it seems that the Security Considerations
in draft-arkko should perhaps refer to draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns
and to draft-nakibly.

My $0.02

    Brian