Agreed. This document is not an endorsement of any of the protocols mentioned, merely an analysis from a security perspective. Mentioning IPv6 here would be a non-sequitur.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:46 AM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]" <evyncke= > [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
