On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:27, Susan Hares wrote:
Ben:
I have responded to Kathleen's comment with a lengthy set of
questions. Would you engage in the conversation on that thread?
I saw your response to Kathleen. I will watch the conversation there,
and respond if I think I have something further to add.
Thanks!
Ben.
Summary of the issue: These modules and any module that refers to
these must utilize the privacy and security concerns in the
draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-17.txt. I see the
authors referred to the ephemeral state, but left out a reference to
draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements. I would suggest that
the authors add this reference at the very least.
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 5:19 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]; Susan Hares;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-10: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-10: 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-i2rs-yang-network-topo/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with both of Kathleen's DISCUSS points.
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
