Hello Michael
I agree with the format you selected, things are readable this way.
There are 2 or 3 typos in the new text that can be fixed with the editor.
Also I’m happy with the conclusions you made on the possible attacks.
All the best,
Pascal
> Le 22 janv. 2020 à 23:21, Michael Richardson
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-08=draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-09
I have interspersed the security issues with each of the fields within the
description of the fields in section 2. This avoids enumerating the fields a
second time,
Yoav Nir wrote:
> Not really. You’ve added an explanation of why it’s hard to encrypt.
> That is not needed IMO. What is needed is a statement that sending in
> the clear (not the default in IETF protocols these days) is OK because
> the data is not sensitive.
No, I'm saying
Not really. You’ve added an explanation of why it’s hard to encrypt. That is
not needed IMO. What is needed is a statement that sending in the clear (not
the default in IETF protocols these days) is OK because the data is not
sensitive.
> On 18 Jan 2020, at 0:49, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
Yoav Nir via Datatracker wrote:
> The draft is short and to the point and easy to understand. The security
> considerations (and privacy considerations!) sections are well written and
> cover everything. I'm just missing one clause.
> The
Yoav,
Thank you for your feedback. I will add that line on the next
version.
Regards,
Diego Dujovne
Le jeu. 16 janv. 2020 à 15:03, Yoav Nir via Datatracker
a écrit :
> Reviewer: Yoav Nir
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> The draft is short and to the point
Reviewer: Yoav Nir
Review result: Has Nits
The draft is short and to the point and easy to understand. The security
considerations (and privacy considerations!) sections are well written and
cover everything. I'm just missing one clause.
The first paragraph reads:
All of the contents of
