[OPSAWG] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com> Thu, 19 April 2018 03:56 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud@ietf.org, Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, jclarke@cisco.com, opsawg@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152411019051.28732.13215756743938832587.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:56:30 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/rCs2v-7FjA_G4ZYVw7CVTPZszgg>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: 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-opsawg-mud/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 1.6

I looked at RFC2618 and there is nothing even remotely resembling certificate
validation. I think this reference is wrong. Please fix.

* Section 9.1

Who enforces this given that the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers are separate?

"In the case where both v4 and v6 DHCP options are emitted, the same URL MUST
be used."

[OPSAWG] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-… Suresh Krishnan