Hi Christer,
Thanks for your comments, I agree with most of them. Allow me to answer a
couple of issues of disagreements.
- Requirements
-- REQ-4: Isn't this requirement already covered by REQ-3?
No. Req-3 claims for a mechanism for the recipient of a message to
determine whether the
Hi,
- Requirements
-- REQ-4: Isn't this requirement already covered by REQ-3?
No. Req-3 claims for a mechanism for the recipient of a message to
determine whether the receive message is private or regular.
Req-4 claims for the a mechanism to send private messages.
True. I didn't realize
On 2/13/2012 5:32 AM, Qin Wu wrote:
Hi, Russ:
Should I address these comments before IESG telechat?
My response may be limited due to business trip in my next week. Here is my
proposed changes to version 07.
I can make these changes today submit -08.
1.Section 5.1, 3rd paragraph, last
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document:
Hi, thanks for the response. See additional comments inline. (I removed
sections for which no further comment seems necessary)
On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:
[...]
-- I admit to not being a DHCP expert, but If I understand this draft
correctly, it proposes to send
On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
[RM] The intention is to use this method only for environments with native
security mechanisms, such as the Broadband Access network. You are right it
is not clearly said in the document I can add the following sentence at the
end of the
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Do I infer correctly from your comment that the security properties of the
mechanism don't really matter? That is, if the attacker we care about can't
eavesdrop in the first place, does this really need to be an HMAC?
Hm, I thought about that a
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Do I infer correctly from your comment that the security properties of the
mechanism don't really matter? That is, if the attacker we care about can't
eavesdrop in the first place, does this
You should make them when the sponsoring AD indicates. I do not know if other
changes are expected based on other reviews.
Russ
On Feb 12, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
Hi, Russ:
Should I address these comments before IESG telechat?
My response may be limited due to business trip in my
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I have not seen a updated document to resolve this concern.
One was not requested. If you need it in order to prevent a DISCUSS, by all
means let us know and we'll pump one out.
--Paul Hoffman
___
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I have not seen a updated document to resolve this concern.
You have now. :-)
--Paul Hoffman
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
11 matches
Mail list logo
