Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: 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-dmm-pmipv6-dlif/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Mirja Kühlewind's and Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS position. ** Section 6. Per “The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit this amplification risk”, could you address Vincent Roca’s SECDIR Review (thank you!) question “should that pacing be on the In the incoming queue (i.e., by delaying some PBU/PBA messages) or in the outgoing queue (i.e., to limit output traffic), or both?” ** Section 6. To provide normative language: s/This requires security associations to exist between the involved MAARs/ Hence, security associations are REQUIRED to exist between the involved MAARs/ Editorial Nit: ** Section 6. s/there may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs exist/ there may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs/ _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
