Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-08: 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-ospf-bfd-strict-mode/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Wes Hardaker for the SECDIR review. ** Section 1. Typo. s/adjaceny/adjacency/ ** Section 1. Typo. s/establishement/establishment/ ** Section 8. If authentication is being used in the OSPF routing domain [RFC5709][RFC7474], then the Cryptographic Authentication TLV [RFC5613] SHOULD also be used to protect the contents of the LLS block. Since strict-mode BFD functionality is not going to be present in legacy implementations, could it be mandatory to protect the LLS block (i.e., use of the Cryptographic Authentication TLV is a MUST)? _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
