I have to agree with Magnus here: I think this is really a stretch. Barry
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:40 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
