Acee, Please fix this nit (because otherwise, mutual authentication part can be confused with the examples):
OLD: These protocols have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000] and have to use mutual authentication. NEW: These protocols have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication. Thanks. Cheers, Med De : Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mardi 1 avril 2025 01:23 À : Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> Cc : The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ospf-sr-y...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> Objet : Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-34: (with COMMENT) inline w/ [DC] On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 11:01 AM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Deb, > On Mar 28, 2025, at 9:30 AM, Deb Cooley via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: > > Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-34: 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-ospf-sr-yang/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Thank you to Corey Bonnell for his secdir review. > > I do agree that the lack of narrative text makes this difficult to review. > > Section 3: If the template is changed (see M. Boucadair's review), then (or > Paul) will re-review this section. I have updated to the RFC8407BIS template as suggested in -37. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/ [DC] This works, (other than comments I have on the actual template which I won't bore you with). TY > > Section 3, para 1: If TLS is used, is mutual authentication mandated? If > not, > why not? With the updated template, TLS is only referenced as an example of a secure transport protocol. Talk to Med if you think this should be added to the template. [DC] the updated template does point to mutual authentication in the same place that it says that secure transport must be used. The wording isn't ideal, but it is the template. Hopefully it will be better going forward, I have provided feedback to Med. Thanks, Acee > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
