Hi Donald,
Thanks for your response, inline.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Kathleen,
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> wrote:
>> Hi Donald,
>>
>> Thanks for the proposed text. Please see inline.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Donal
Hi Kathleen,
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>
> Thanks for the proposed text. Please see inline.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Donald Eastlake
wrote:
>> Hi Kathleen,
>>
>> Would the following replacement Security
Hi Donald,
Thanks for the proposed text. Please see inline.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Kathleen,
>
> Would the following replacement Security Considerations section for
> draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls be adequate?
>
>
>This document specifies method
Hi Kathleen,
Would the following replacement Security Considerations section for
draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls be adequate?
This document specifies methods using existing standards and
facilities in ways that do not create new security problems.
For general VPLS security conside
Kathleen,
I don’t want to speak for the authors. However, I did contribute to this
draft (although not this specific section). So that said, here’s my two
cents ….
I agree that first sentence could have been worded better, but the bottom
line is that depending on the model used, the security cons
Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-07: Discuss
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
