Re: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-10: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Hmm... I think it would be good to point out that there are places to secure
things other than IPsec (especially given that these, not IPsec, are the
dominant methods for protecting traffic that goes over IPsec). However,
if people feel strongly for some reason that naming the protocols causes
problems, I can live without that.

-Ekr


On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-10: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for updating the Security Considerations section, I was glad to
> see the references added to the fragmentation work that had already been
> done.  If the TLS and SSH reference remain in the document, references
> would be good - RFC7525 and RFC4250-4254, but my preference would be to
> delete the sentence as this document is about IPv6 and developers and
> implementers of this standard wouldn't need those references, IPsec is
> enough.
>
>
>