Re: [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 12 Apr 2017, at 15:54, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:

> Ben -
>
> Thanx for the review.
>
> Multiple instances of the protocol are not new. What is new is running 
> multiple instances on the same interface.

That's what I meant :-)

> We do not think this introduces any new security issues - which is why 
> the Security section simple references the existing security related 
> specs for the protocol.
>
> Also note this is a revision to RFC 6822 (changes documented in the 
> Appendix). The Security section was deemed acceptable for RFC 6822 and 
> we have not changed it (quite deliberately).

Ah, okay.

>
>    Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 1:48 PM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Christian Hopps; 
>> [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02: 
>> (with
>> COMMENT)
>>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02: 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-isis-mi-bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Security Considerations: Have people thought about whether multiple
>> protocol instances changes anything? If so, please consider 
>> documenting
>> those thoughts here.
>>