Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-11: 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-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2.6: I wondered why this was useful. Is it for cases where the secondary push service is differently connected or is it in case the primary goes down? Might be good to say. - section 6: what security mechanism differences are there between the push and pull cases? Why aren't those called out here? Forcing the reader to delve into the various other security mechanism RFCs and figure this out themselves seems less good. - section 6: apologies if I asked this before (in which case I forget the answer;-) but how fictional/real is the crypto stuff with TRILL in terms of the likelihood of it being actually used? I ask again, as if the crypto stuff is mostly fictional, then I think you ought note that here, given the attack surface that the directory function creates. _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
