Re-,
Many thanks for the review. A candidate version can be tracked at:
https://tinyurl.com/l3nm-latest.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 12 juillet 2021 14:13
> À :
Hi Rob,
Many thanks for the review. A candidate updated version can be seen at:
https://tinyurl.com/vpn-common-latest
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 12 juillet 2021 17:15
> À :
Hi,
This is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-08.
Thank you for this document. Again, just minor comments/suggestions.
1.
In section 3. Description of the VPN Common YANG Module
"Encapsulation features such as" -> "Encapsulation features. Such as"
"Routing features such as" ->
> Those failures will happen with or without MUD.
Please explain: how do we see inconsistent application of DNS based rules
without MUD?
What I meant in context was that there could be NAT binding timeouts and
the like, but there are systems out there that do keep context based on
Eliot Lear wrote:
> The key issue is that the new query and resolution has to get picked up
> by the network management system. So long as that happens, then life
> is good. This means that the resolver needs to be integrated with the
> MUD manager, but also that the IoT
Hi Joe,
Having the WGLC right after IETF#111 is a good plan. Thanks.
Looking forward to receive your comments.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:jcla...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : samedi 10 juillet 2021 20:53
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
>
