IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Mon, 03 November 2014 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAD21A887E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:33:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M_lgW90cIuTi for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45EF71A888A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id sA3NWtWD050276; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 00:32:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201411032332.sA3NWtWD050276@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:11:25 GMT. <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B6F6882@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 00:32:55 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/DflGg_KwJilHhqupU6WSxIjk2wg
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 23:33:10 -0000

I forgot to summary my position about the I-D:
 - I support it for the IETF LC

 - I have no blocking concern (so I shan't object if the current version
  is sent for the IETF LC even IMHO it could be a bit improved before
  so in a new version)

 - I shall support any cryptographer who recommend to change the current
  proposed algo lists (removing weak algos and/or adding better algos).
  Of course it should be easier to get this in the (larger) IETF LC.

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email