Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a follow-up, I am reviewing the comments provided by others to make
> sure they have been addressed. Erik Kline made the following comment,
> for which I do not see a diff. I do notice that the word “geofenced”
> has been taken out, but there is still a use of the term “geofencing”,
> for which Erik’s comment still applies.
I found "geofencing", and replaced with tailored response.
> ### S6.4
> * I suggest finding some text to point to that defines what a "geofenced"
> name is. Right now this feels like the kind of thing that everyone
> "just knows what it means", but could use some formal description.
I'm sad that we did not put this term in RFC8499bis.
Meanwhile, we have a new list: DNSLB, which deals exactly with this topic.
> Then there is the comment from John Scudder, which says:
> The last para of the Intro is:
> ```
> The Security Considerations section covers some of the negative
> outcomes should MUD/firewall managers and IoT manufacturers choose
> not to cooperate.
> ```
> It doesn't, though. I guess either fix the SecCons to do what the Intro
> says, or change the Intro to accurately describe the SecCons.
I shall edit the introduction I think: I think that in the end, we have removed
all
the bad consequences, but I'll think on exactly how to update the text.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
