Re: [alto] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Suresh,

see below

> Am 04.12.2018 um 08:09 schrieb Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>:
> 
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> * Section 4.2.3. and 4.2.4.
> 
> This document uses addresses from the allocatable global unicast IPv6 space in
> 2000::/3 in the examples. Please use addresses from the 2001:db8::/32
> documentation prefix instead for the examples as per RFC6890.

Thanks. Thats was an oversight. And I believe Adam noted that already as well. I will make sure this gets updated before publication.

Sabine, can you maybe fix this and quickly submit a new version?

> 
> * Section 6
> 
> Any reason this document requires the use of TLS 1.2 instead of TLS 1.3?

That’s a citation from RFC7285. However, effectively I think it only requires TLS and as every other application that uses TLS, alto server and clients are free to implemented the newer version. I guess we could say that explicitly but it does feel like the right doc to do that.

Thanks,
Mirja

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto