Hello Suresh, Thanks for your comments, Please see answers and one question on our side inline,
All the best for 2019, Sabine -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 8:09 AM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT) 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. [[SR]] Thanks, will be done as indicated by Mirja * Section 6 Any reason this document requires the use of TLS 1.2 instead of TLS 1.3? [[SR]] No particular reason. In section, after quoting the RFC 7285 text, we may add the text below, with one question though: do you see chances for TLS 1.2 to be deprecated in the near future? ------- "RFC 8446 specifies TLS 1.3 and writes in its section 1: “While TLS 1.3 is not directly compatible with previous versions, all versions of TLS incorporate a versioning mechanism which allows clients and servers to interoperably negotiate a common version if one is supported by both peers". So ALTO clients and servers MAY use newer versions (e.g., 1.3) of TLS as long as the negotiation process succeeds. To ensure backward compatibility with RFC 7285, it is RECOMMENDED for both Calendar-aware Clients and Servers to both support at least TLS 1.2, until it gets deprecated.” ------ _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
