Magnus, While my comment is not directed to the core of the document, I believe that when one IETF document refers in the section 3, ' Transport Security Protocol Descriptions', to non-IETF protocols, then in order to avoid any 'IETF blessing' of this protocol, it should clearly state the important protocol limitations when describing this protocol.
Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: iesg <[email protected]> on behalf of Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 14:41 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Mohit Sethi M <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > A simple mention of the lack of IPv6 in section 3 of the description would > be > more than enough for me. Yes, but why do you consider that relevant for this document? Cheers Magnus _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
