Hi Roman,
Thanks for your comments.
We dropped the note about "formal changes".
RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 do define TLVs in the "BMP Initiation and Peer Up
Information TLVs" registry that we are going to split as part of this
document.
Thanks for your editorial note wrt security considerations, applied your
proposed text to a -05 revision of the document that i will submit shortly.
Paolo
On 30/9/24 16:20, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-04: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Abstract and Section 1
The
changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations
of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this
specification.
-- I am unable to parse this sentence. What does it mean? For example, do
documents make "informal changes"?
-- In what way is RFC8671 and RFC9069 updated?
** Section 5. Editorial.
This rearrangement of deck chairs does not change the underlying
security issues inherent in the existing [RFC7854].
Consider restating this text more clearly without using the Titanic (?)
metaphor.
NEW
This document does not alter the security considerations of RFC7854 which
continue to apply.
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
