Hi, I have now cleared my discuss. Thanks for addressing them. However, I was hoping the following comments would get addressed too, as I think they would improve the spec. # Section 2.4: I would like to have rational behind the two mode of operations. what are the pros and cons and when would an implementer select one over another? if this is written somewhere else then having a point would be great benefit. # Section 2.4.1: The failure correction due to the expected bandwidth under estimation, where loss seems to be an indication, seems like a serious matter and but still there is no normative language requirements on the reporting the loss. I wonder how useful this could be. If the reporting is that important to have a note in this specification then it is better to use normative langues to enforce it. //Zahed On 2022-08-29, 14:53, "iesg" <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> wrote: Hi Zahed, please see inline... Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sar...@ericsson.com> writes: > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: den 25 augusti 2022 15:43 > To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sar...@ericsson.com> > Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ipsecme-ip...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org; kivi...@iki.fi > Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > Hi Zaheduzzaman, > > [inline] > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> writes: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ... >> 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: > > > I believe we will discussing those proposals, if they are good enough. Lets continue the discussion in Lars's discuss thread. Lars has already replied in the affirmative: >> We have a couple more ADs with ECN as a DISCUSS: >> >> - Lars - You wanted us to be explicit about what to do with ECN field based on RFC6040. The propsed text above satisfies this requirement I beleive. Agreed? > > yes, possibly with the addition Martin later suggested ("unless all inner packets have the same marking"). > > Thanks, > Lars > > //Zahed |
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
