He he, should we declare absence of IPv6 support a security risk? :D
On a serious note - somebody could go, get this list of requirements, discover that IPv6 is not a requirement and with straight face order cpe's without IPv6 support. That's a risk that I see.
I would add just a sentence at the beginning that it is presumed for the purpose of the document that IPv6 and IPv4 protocols are supported, implemented and enabled.
Cheers, Jan
---
Sent from mobile phone, please excuse brevity and top-posting
On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es>> wrote:
Hi Jan,
It is a "minimum security for acquisition", not minimum features ... Those features are better documented in RFC7084 and if you want to support transition soon, hopefully in the RFC resulting from draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
I think when done, we can also bring it to RIPE ?
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: BCOP <bcop-bounces at lacnog.org> en nombre de Jan Zorz - ISOC <zorz at isoc.org>
Responder a: This list is to discuss BCOPs in LACNOG <bcop at lacnog.org>
Fecha: sábado, 16 de junio de 2018, 15:27
Para: <bcop at lacnog.org>
Asunto: Re: [BCOP] BCOP Draft-2: open for comments
On 16/06/2018 04:59, Lucimara Desiderá wrote:
Hello LACNOG Community
After two rounds of discussions, we are releasing today the Draft-2 of
the BCOP document "Minimum security requirements for CPEs acquisition".
Until July 22, 2018, the Draft-2 will be open for comments and
suggestions from the whole LACNOG community and you are all welcome to
provide feedback and make contributions. Contributors from M3AAWG will
also have the opportunity to review the document.
The Draft-2 is available at the link below. In order make comments and
to see others' suggestions, please sign in to Google Docs and request
permission to edit.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Sa8ZEnKXiAnh_xRc-J44VXadUGdr98MT_MZrA5sALc/edit?usp=sharing
Hey,
Thank you for sharing, this is a great document. I skimmed through while
waiting for my flight home at Helsinki airport and document looks in
good shape. It's a bit IETF-ish, but on the other hand that also gives
clarity to the language.
One thing that I'm missing is that IPv6 is not requested as a must
anywhere. Do we presume that new CPEs have IPv6 by default anyway?
Cheers and thnx, Jan
________________________________
BCOP mailing list
BCOP at lacnog.org
https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/bcop
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
________________________________
BCOP mailing list
BCOP at lacnog.org
https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/bcop
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/bcop/attachments/20180616/584b203d/attachment-0001.html>