Hi Ketan, Thanks for the additional text in the -21, I think it is really helpful.
Trimming heavily... On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 08:52:41AM +0530, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for your time and your response. Please check inline below with KT3. > > We've also posted an update with changes to address your comments: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-21 > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 12:54 AM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 04:06:53PM +0530, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 7:32 AM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 09:21:04PM +0530, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:46 AM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < > > > > > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section 10 > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we also want to mention the security considerations of > > several > > > > more > > > > > > documents, including (but not limited to) > > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy and RFCs 8660, 8754, and > > 8986. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Ack on the three RFCs, but convinced about the > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy since that depends on this > > and > > > > not > > > > > the other way around. > > > > > > > > I think this relates to John's Discuss point and whether this document > > > > specifies the protocol behavior of the two bits in the context of the > > > > extension defined in draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy. You > > need to > > > > understand draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy in order to > > understand > > > > the security considerations relating to the protocol behavior > > controlled by > > > > those two bits, and IMO the protocol behavior specified by those two > > bits > > > > is solely the responsibility of this document, so this document must > > > > incorporate the security considerations of > > > > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy in order to fully document the > > > > security considerations of the concepts and protocol elements that this > > > > document defines. > > > > > > > > > > KT2> I am working with John to address his comments. > > > > Okay, the changes from -18 to -20 are looking promising, but I will let > > John decide when it's done. > > > > KT3> Our discussion with John is ongoing and seems like might take more > time. Would you be clearing your DISCUSS assuming the updates address your > concerns? Yes, I have already cleared since my specific Discuss-level concerns are addressed. Thanks again, Ben _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
