Re: [sfc] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Murray, 

Thanks for the comments.

I don't have much to add to the DISCUSS point in addition to what both Joel and myself said in other threads. We added new text as agreed with Alvaro and Zahed to make sure that we are referring to an option that is discussed in RFC8300 + we don't recommend against transport security. We will add the update header if this is the conclusion of the IESG discussion. We will follow Martin's guidance on this.

Fixed the nits as you can see in: https://tinyurl.com/nsh-integrity-latest.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 15 juillet 2021 08:14
> À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-
> 06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-
> criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity/
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> Enough other Area Directors have said, and I agree, that this should
> officially update RFC 8300, so I'd like to have the discussion.  In
> particular, given that this was identified as a gap in RFC 8300, and
> since I don't see any explicit statement that this is meant to be an
> optional extension, shouldn't it be an update?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> COMMENT:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> Only nits to add, given the thorough treatment already given by
> others:
> 
> Section 4.1.2: "The first level of assurance where all NSH data ..."
> -- add "is" before "where"?  And the same issue in the next
> paragraph.
> 
> Section 5.2: s/Coves/Covers/
> 
> 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.