Teredo Security Updates
RFC 5991
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
The first paragraph in the Security Considerations section states the goal of comparable address prediction resistance with respect to a host directly attached to an untrusted Internet link, but nothing in the Security Considerations section indicates how close the technique in this document comes to achieving that goal. A short discussion of the 13 random bits and this goal should be added.
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Tim's DISCUSS. An additional location for more information on random #s: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4086.txt
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection