Re: [MLS] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Zahed,

Hi! A new version has dropped (actually I think two since your ballot position was entered) and I was hoping you could take a quick peek to see if this version addresses you discuss points; one at least is addressed as Roman has withdrawn his DISCUSS.

Cheers,
spt

> On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:15, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10: Discuss
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mls-architecture/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for working on this specification.
> 
> After reading section 7, I would like to discuss why there is no explicit
> recommendation of using secure transport for MLS. This section and subsections
> point out various strong opinions to use secure transport. I there is any
> particular reason to support secure transport protocol then it should be
> mentioned. I kind of feel that the work "transport" here does not really only
> refer to Layer 4 transport protocols, needs some clarification.
> 
> I also support Roman's discuss that the recommendation on section 7.4.3.2 and
> section 7.1.2 are countering each other.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - It took time for me to understand that the recommendation in section 7.1.4
> refers to different set of transport protocols than those examples mentioned in
> beginning of section 7.1 :-), yes, I did not took the "unidirectional" word
> seriously. However, I think some clarification and/or reference to some FEC
> scheme for unidirectional transport here would be good.
> 
> 
>