On 23/2/21 13:54, Mark Smith wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 02:51, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, Tom,
On 23/2/21 11:34, Tom Herbert wrote:
[...]
>From the draft:
"Unless appropriate mitigations are put in place (e.g., packet
dropping and/or rate- limiting), an attacker could simply send a large
amount of IPv6 traffic employing IPv6 Extension Headers with the
purpose of performing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack"
That is clearly recommending a mitigation which is to drop packets or
rate-limit.
No, We're just stating the obvious. If we were performing a
recommendation, the text would be something like "IPv6 implementations
should". And we'd also be using RFC2119 speak... and the document would
be BCP.
It reads like an implied recommendation to me.
It's stating possible prevention measures, and then the consequences
of not doing them. That implies the stated prevention measures are
recommended. (e.g. "If you aren't careful with a knife, you could cut
yourself (so be careful with a knife)").
I think you're reading more from the draft that what we have written or
meant.
Your example is a good one, and has indeed two parts:
"If you aren't careful with a knife, you could cut yourself"
This is a *fact* and I don't think there's much room for debate around it.
"(so be careful with a knife)"
*This* is advice.
Our document contains the former (a fact), but not the later (advice).
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
