Re: [babel] minor DTLS comment

Thanks for your comment, Barbara. I agree with you, and have added the
following text:
https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/commit/a5a372a942ebc7951b2847d88123d75ab8169f2f

Please let us know if you feel it addresses your comment.

Thanks,
David

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 5:35 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:

> Since the DTLS draft is still open for comments, I do have a small one
> about how the UDP ports are characterized.
> The IANA assigned ports are default values, and need to be portrayed as
> such. It's allowed (or should be) for deployed instances to use other
> values. This is pretty much true of all protocols. Certainly the base babel
> protocol allows other values to be used (which is why the homenet babel
> profile mandated use of 6696).
>
> Maybe instead of
>    All Babel over DTLS nodes MUST act as DTLS servers on the "babel-
>    dtls" port (UDP port TBD), and MUST listen for traffic on the
>    unencrypted "babel" port (UDP port 6696).
>
> say
>    All Babel over DTLS nodes MUST act as DTLS servers on the "babel-
>    dtls" port, and MUST listen for traffic on the
>    unencrypted "babel" port.
>    The IANA-assigned values of 6696 for the "babel" port and
>    TBD for the "babel-dtls" port SHOULD be used.
>
> Barbara
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>