Subject: [OPSEC] Meta-comment on draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-firewall-reqs-00.txt

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:05:56 -0300

Folks,

Just as a clarification (please read the whole thing before responding
on this thread):

This first revision of the I-D has these goals (in order of priority,
I'd say):

1) Agree on a rationale to write this spec.

For example, one possible rationale is "aim at providing parity of
features with IPv4". Another one could be that "should should aim a
little higher". For example, in the light of
draft-farrell-perpass-attack we may aim at requiring some privacy
features that might not be that common in IPv4 firewalls.

2) Expose different aspects of firewalls that we may want to standardize.

High-level feedback along the lines of "this other aspect is missing,
and should be added" or "we probably should not address this or that
other aspect" are very valuable.

3) Discussion of concrete requirements.

Here the feedback would be in the form of "This or that requirement is
missing", "this or that requirement doesn't make sense and should be
eliminated", etc. And for each of those that we keep in, arguments in
favor of "mandatory", "recommended", or "optional" (i.e., what the level
of each requirement should be).

I will start a new thread to start discussing item #1 above.

Thanks!
Fernando

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1