Hi Suresh, see below
> Am 04.12.2018 um 08:09 schrieb Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]>: > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Section 4.2.3. and 4.2.4. > > This document uses addresses from the allocatable global unicast IPv6 space in > 2000::/3 in the examples. Please use addresses from the 2001:db8::/32 > documentation prefix instead for the examples as per RFC6890. Thanks. Thats was an oversight. And I believe Adam noted that already as well. I will make sure this gets updated before publication. Sabine, can you maybe fix this and quickly submit a new version? > > * Section 6 > > Any reason this document requires the use of TLS 1.2 instead of TLS 1.3? That’s a citation from RFC7285. However, effectively I think it only requires TLS and as every other application that uses TLS, alto server and clients are free to implemented the newer version. I guess we could say that explicitly but it does feel like the right doc to do that. Thanks, Mirja > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
