Hi,
Eric and I have discussed this and the proposal is a clarifying change to the initial statement in Section 3: OLD: This section contains brief descriptions of the various security protocols currently used to protect data being sent over a network. NEW: This section contains brief transport and security descriptions of the various security protocols currently used to protect data being sent over a network. The purpose of this change to clarify that these descriptions are only concerning relevant aspects of transport and security. Are the WG and authors ok with the above change? Cheers Magnus From: iesg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Kyle Rose Sent: den 9 april 2020 16:01 To: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mohit Sethi M <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > on behalf > of Magnus Westerlund <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Date: Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 14:41 > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> >, Mohit Sethi M <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> >, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> >, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> " > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> >, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[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 > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
