Hiya, On 31/01/17 14:20, [email protected] wrote: > Re-, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- De : Stephen Farrell >> [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : mardi 31 janvier 2017 >> 14:45 À : The IESG Cc : >> [email protected]; softwire- >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Objet : >> Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite- >> multicast-16: (with COMMENT) >> >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-16: No Objection >> >> 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-softwire-dslite-multicast/ >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> - IPR: so we have a late IPR declaration that sys >> RAND+royalty but yet the filing refers to the I-D that preceded the >> application and there's a common author/inventor. Sheesh. But the >> WG did consider it and were ok going ahead from a look at the >> list. (So there's no need to reply to my whining here:-) >> >> - 6.3: Is RFC7739 worth a mention here? Not sure myself. >> > [Med] Given that the document does not discuss how the identification > field is valued and that RFC7739 provides algo EXAMPLES, I tend to > not cite it here. > >> - section 9: I'd have thought that this solution reduced the >> potential for a DoS compared to the previous situation where >> multicast traffic is mapped to unicast? If so, worth a mention? >> > [Med] What about? > > "Unlike solutions that map IPv4 multicast flows to IPv6 unicast > flows, this document does not exacerbate Denial-of-Service (DoS) > attacks." >
That seems a bit of a negative way to put it. But if you think it's worth a mention, the it'll do:-) S. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
