Re: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity

Dear Authors,
I appreciate your kind consideration of my comments on the draft. I've
reviewed the updates. It all looks good. I might have a small question
about the case of IV Length = 0. The updated text suggests:
       If encryption is not used, IV length is set to zero
       (that is, no "Initialization Vector" is included).
As I understand it, that means that the IV Length field is immediately
followed by the padding as explained in the last paragraph in Section 5:
   The "MAC and Encrypted Metadata" Context Headers are padded out to a
    multiple of 4 bytes as per Section 2.2 of [RFC8300].
Is that correct?

And yes, I support progressing this document to publication.

Regards,
Greg

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:33 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> As you can see below, the SFC Chairs have started the WG last Call for
> the nsh-integrity draft.  Please respond.
> Thank you,
> Joel
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message -------
>
>
> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity has been changed to "In
> WG
> Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity/
>
> Comment:
> This starts the SFC Working Group last call for the NSH integrity
> protection
> document.  This will run through the end of the day February 11, 2021.
> (Don't worry about time zone.  If it is still Feb 11 2021 somewhere in the
> world, you can send in comments.)  Please respond.  Silence is not consent,
> and when (if, but we hope when) we send this to the AD, we need to be
> able to
> describe meaningful WG support for the publication.  And if possible, more
> than just +1.
>
> Thank you,
> Joel (and Jim)
>
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>