Hi Ali! > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:43 AM > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter- > subnet-forwarding-09: (with COMMENT) > > > Hi Roman, > > Thanks for your comments. Please see my replies inline marked with [AS]: > > On 7/15/20, 6:45 PM, "BESS on behalf of Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-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-bess-evpn-inter-subnet- > forwarding/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support the DISCUSS ballot position of Erik Kline > > I support the DISCUSS ballot position of Alvaro Retana > > I support the DISCUSS ballot position of Ben Kaduk > > Not much to add to the feedback of my peer ADs. > > ** Please respond to the SECDIR feedback (and thank you Chris Lonvick for > doing > it!) > > ** Section 11. As there is nothing documented to prevent this approach > from > being used across administrative domains with different policies (i.e., > there > is no applicability statement or normative language providing caution from > being used outside of the commonly reference data center use case) or any > security assumptions made about the elements involved, please reiterate > that > there are no inherent security services being provided to protect the > traffic. > If this is desired it should provide through other means. > > [AS] I added a paragraph to section 11 per another feedback to address this. > It > is reflected in rev10.
Thanks for this new clarifying language in Section 11. Regards, Roman _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
