[ipv6-wg] Discrepancies within ripe-554

Dear Sirs,

 

while reading ripe-554 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-554)
carefully, I found the following discrepancies:

 

1.    In section "Requirements for network security equipment" you say
that "For every mandatory standard the applicable subgroups are
specified in parentheses at the end of the line". Then within "Mandatory
Support" you can find the following line: "Deprecation of Type 0
Routing Headers in IPv6 [RFC5095]*". Does the omission of any
applicable subgroup mean, that this requirement is not applicable to
any subgroup (where the "*" just indicates that this is a requirement
for "IPv6 Ready Logo" only), or does it in contrast mean, that this
requirement is implicitly applicable to all 3 subgroups FW, IFS and
APFW?



2.    Within "Optional Support" of section "Requirements for network
security equipment" with one exception no applicable subgroups are
specified. Does this mean, that these optional requirements are
implicitly applicable to all 3 subgroups FW, IFS and APFW? But then no
applicable subgroup should be mentioned at all, hence the one exception
I mentioned causes confusion: "Using IPsec to Secure IPv6-in-IPv4
Tunnels [RFC4891] (FW)". And you are embarrassed even more when you see
the following a few lines later: "Using IPSec to Secure IPv6-in-IPv4
Tunnels [RFC4891]".  Hence, I assume that the first line "Using IPsec
to Secure IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels [RFC4891] (FW)" is an error and has to
be wiped out?



3.    Within "Mandatory Support" of section "Requirements for network
security equipment" you find "If the request is for a dynamic internal
gateway protocol (IGP), then the required . , OSPF-v3 [RFC5340] . must
be supported." while within  "Optional Support" of section "Requirements
for network security equipment" you will see: "OSPF-v3 [RFC5340]". Can
you explain this contrariety?



4.    Within "Mandatory Support" of section "Requirements for network
security equipment" you find "If OSPF-v3 is requested, the device must
support "Authentication/Confidentiality for OSPFv3" [RFC4552] (FW, IPS,
APFW)" while within  "Optional Support" of section "Requirements for
network security equipment" you will see:
"Authentication/Confidentiality for OSPF-v3 [RFC4552]". Can you explain
this contrariety?

 

Your answers are welcome!

Kind Regards 

DATEV eG 

Dr. Andreas Cudok 

Paumgartnerstr. 6-14 
D 90329 Nürnberg 
Phone +49(911)319-4031
Mail andreas.cudok at datev.de <mailto:andreas.cudok at datev.de>  

 

  _____  

Diese E-Mail wurde mit einem Zertifikat der DATEV eG signiert. Damit
können Sie sicher sein, dass die Nachricht so von uns gesendet wurde.
Wenn Sie eine Meldung erhalten, dass die Signatur ungültig ist oder
nicht geprüft werdenkann, fehlt das Zertifikat zu dieser Signatur auf
Ihrem Rechner. Informationen zu Zertifikaten und zur digitalen Signatur
finden Sie unter www.datev.de/zertifikate im Internet. 
  _____  

DATEV eG
90329 Nürnberg	 	Sitz: 90429 Nürnberg, Paumgartnerstraße 6-14
Registergericht Nürnberg, GenReg Nr. 70	 
Telefon +49 911 319-0
Telefax +49 911 319-3196	 	E-Mail info at datev.de
Internet www.datev.de	 
Vorstand
Prof. Dieter Kempf (Vorsitzender)
Dipl.-Kfm. Wolfgang Stegmann (stellvertretender Vorsitzender)
Dipl.-Kfm. Dr. Robert Mayr
Jörg Rabe v. Pappenheim
Dipl.-Vw. Eckhard Schwarzer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Reinhard Verholen 	
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20140515/cc39a797/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vCard.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 2208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20140515/cc39a797/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 1996 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20140515/cc39a797/attachment.bin>