Jari, Yes, Suresh and I/authors have already agreed on changes that I have incorporated into our working copy.
Apologies for not closing the loop with you, will forward. Thanks! Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows > On Nov 21, 2013, at 6:49 AM, "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Suresh: thank you very much for the review. Carlos: I assume you and Joel > have the token on ensuring that changes, if any, get folded in before the > document is shipped to the RFC editor. I have balloted a no-obj position for > this draft. > > By the way, I agree with the points that Suresh raised. > > Jari > >> On Nov 18, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Many thanks for your review, Suresh. We will propose resolutions to these >> three comments you make. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- Carlos. >> >>> On Nov 18, 2013, at 12:54 AM, Suresh Krishnan >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer >>> for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >>> >>> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before >>> posting a new version of the draft. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-opsec-ip-options-filtering-05.txt >>> Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan >>> Review Date: 2013/11/17 >>> IESG Telechat date: 2013/11/21 >>> >>> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a BCP but >>> I do have some issues that you may wish to consider >>> >>> * Sections 4.12.5 and 4.13.5 >>> >>> Since these options are supposed to be used in closed environments, >>> how likely are these options to appear in the wild? Even if they do, >>> isn’t it a symptom of a misconfiguration somewhere. Given this, I >>> would have expected the recommendation to read >>> >>> Routers, security gateways, and firewalls … SHOULD by default drop >>> packets because they contain this option… >>> >>> but the recommendation is “SHOULD NOT by default”. I think It would >>> be good if there was some reasoning attached to this recommendation. >>> Without such reasoning, I think this recommendation will probably not >>> be followed. >>> >>> * Section 4.22.5 >>> >>> Have you considered that the default behavior for the option could be >>> related >>> to the option class. E.g. Class 2 would default to ignore and forward and >>> class 0 would default to drop and log. >>> >>> * Section 4.23.4 >>> >>> It would be good to specify a default for this knob. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Suresh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
