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

[Tom Yu <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> 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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf