Paul - Thanx for the review. Inline,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 11:41 AM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: > (with > COMMENT) > > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot- > positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT > positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Alvaro Retana's DISCUSS position. [LES:] I have replied to Alvaro. Once he returns (next week I believe) and responds we will close on those points. > > Could the example HMAC use in the Security Considerations section be > updated > from HMAC-MD5 to something more modern (eg HMAC-SHA2) or is there a > valid > operational reason to stick with HMAC-MD5 ? [LES:] I have removed the specific mention of MD5, so the text now says: " ...can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the existing IS-IS security mechanisms (e.g., using the cleartext passwords or Hashed Message Authentication Codes, which are defined in..." Les > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
