[CCAMP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-15: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-15: 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-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(revised ballot to correctly acknowledge the SECDIR reviewer; thanks to Rob
Wilton for pointing it out)

Thank you to David Mandelberg for the SECDIR review.

** Section 8.  As the premise of this document appears be around applicability
to [ITU-T_G709_2020], it seems that relationship should be explicitly described
in the Security Considerations.  Consider:

OLD
This document analyses and reuses the protocol extensions in
   [RFC7138] and [RFC7139] without introducing any new extensions.
   Therefore, this document introduces no new security considerations to
   the existing signalling protocol and routing protocol comparing to
   [RFC7138] and [RFC7139].

NEW
This document analyzed the applicability of protocol extensions in [RFC7138]
and [RFC7139] for use in the 2020 version of G.709 [ITU-T_G709_2020] and found
that no new extensions are needed.  Therefore, this document introduced no new
security considerations to the existing signaling and routing protocols beyond
those already described in [RFC7138] and [RFC7139].