Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-11: Yes
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-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support this document going forward. However, in Section 4 it says: Consequently, an OSPFv3 packet transported within an IPv4 packet requires IPsec to provide authentication and confidentiality. Further work such as [ipsecospf] would be required to support IPsec protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4 transport. And I had trouble understanding what you meant by this, exactly. IPsec is required, but is not currently completely enough defined for OSPF to make this possible? If so, I'd suggest using the words: Consequently, an OSPFv3 packet transported within an IPv4 packet requires IPsec to provide authentication and confidentiality. However, further work such as [ipsecospf] would be required to support IPsec protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4 transport. But maybe I am misunderstanding what was meant here. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
