Hi Zaheduzzaman,
[inline] Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> writes:
Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-17: Discuss 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-ipsecme-iptfs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. I found this spec to be a mix of transport and non-transport related topics and had to think a bit more due to lack of rational behind choices made. I would like to discuss - why there is no normative text (MUST/MUST NOT) for non-congestion controlled mode over operation in this specification that prohibits the use of non-congestion controlled mode out side of controlled environment?
Indeed, the suggested text we offered to add was: "This MUST NOT be used when full admin control over the network cannot be assured."
I am also supporting Lars's discuss on 3.1 ECN support.
This 2nd paragraph was added to satisfy this DISCUSS, please see the latest version: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-17#section-3.1 Thanks, Chris.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
