[dhcwg] IESG comments on draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-08.txt
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 08 August 2003 11:44 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08366 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:44:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l5f8-0000wj-Rk for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:44:02 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h78Bi23L003633 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:44:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l5f8-0000wW-LU for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:44:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08331 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:43:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l5f7-0000AZ-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:44:01 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l5f7-0000AW-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:44:01 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l5f7-0000rS-2Q; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:44:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l5f1-0000rH-JF for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:43:55 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08327 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l5f0-0000AT-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:43:54 -0400
Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19l5f0-0000AE-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:43:54 -0400
Received: from westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.10]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h78BhDc8238806; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:43:13 -0400
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (sig-9-65-202-60.mts.ibm.com [9.65.202.60]) by westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with ESMTP id h78Bh8B5067624; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 05:43:09 -0600
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h78Bfo706633; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:41:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200308081141.h78Bfo706633@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
To: cmonia@nishansystems.com, jtseng@nishansystems.com, kgibbons@nishansystems.com
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, 'David Black' <black_david@emc.com>, "Elizabeth G. Rodriguez" <ElizabethRodriguez@ieee.org>, Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:41:49 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] IESG comments on draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-08.txt
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
[apologies for the earlier truncated note] Hi. The IESG discussed this document yesterday, and the following comments came up. Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> writes: > [iSNS] is listed as non-normative. How's that possible if the opinion > is supposedly specific for iSNS and doesn't make sense outside of iSNS > context, i.e., iSNS needs to exist for the option to make sense. "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> writes: > Is 3118 mandatory-to-implement or not? I have a hard time > understanding why it should be optional. > What are the semantics if both "Main Mode" and "Aggressive Mode" have > the same value? "Transport Mode" and "Tunnel Mode"? If IKE/IPsec is > disabled, what security should be used? Any? None? > The IANA Considerations section is inadequate. First, it should state > what registry the option code should be taken from. Second, it should > state what what procedure (per 2434) should be used to assign new > values to the assorted bit fields in this option. Thomas _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] IESG comments on draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoptio… Thomas Narten
- [dhcwg] IESG comments on draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoptio… Thomas Narten