[trill] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: 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-trill-vendor-channel/



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

Could you please expand the text in the security considerations section as to
why security properties (integrity, authentication, and encryption since they
are not part of RBridge Channel messages except when explicitly added on in the
extension draft) were not built in?  I'm assuming it is the limited scope of
use for the protocol.  I am glad that options exist to add it in, but wish the
text were a bit more encouraging so that would actually happen.  Vendors need
to be motivated to provide these options for customers who may want to use
them, without that motivation, the features won't be provided.