Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls-02.txt

Authors,

if you want to change the draft based on the sec-dir or gen-art  
reviews, please let me know and either send me a corresponding RFC  
Editor Note or tell me that you're submitting a new draft.

Lars

On 2007-10-23, at 9:06, ext Tom Yu wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> writes:
>
> Bob> Tom,
> Bob> You're analysis of the impact on the ECN nonce is accurate.  
> Below is
> Bob> our reasoning for not including the ECN nonce capability in this
> Bob> proposal...
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the detailed rationale of your decision to not include the
> ECN nonce.  Given that the question of detecting disruption of
> end-to-end ECN signaling within an MPLS domain occurred to me from the
> mention of RFC3540 in the Security Considerations, other readers of
> this document may have similar questions.  I suggest that you add a
> sentence or two to the Security Considerations summarizing your
> decision to exclude the ECN nonce capability from this particular
> proposal.  However, I will not object to the passage of this document
> if you choose not to include such a summary.
>
> ---Tom

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls-02.txt

Attachment: smime.p7s