Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-06
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 12 April 2024 15:00 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FF9C14F74E; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mbQr9eSsHjPP; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C5B6C14CE52; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VGKVs5Snzz1Hx; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:00:21 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1712934021; bh=S3mYEDj5cEMSdlKUyBDV04IN7t5Q5RoKRQPS40Zg71E=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Hz6DRQJrUTAEuOxQ5MuwXH8ZCi4y0fCXhXmHH+AK+8J9Q6wRgYERahAMcCp3U9tkm 7qNuwYcBoXczJHLh6AkFzgE8Fxbjco+fTqSCCCNzup9yd70hlKUMVIm+yf3HA2FhhS 6aqrkIFvxo6JCeuEI07UpyEFgmMQxkTxKmu0loBM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38qnGVZPTSLS; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:00:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:00:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 11C9911C145E; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF6611C145D; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:00:20 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>
cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance.all@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <171274001090.2420.10816994295519414610@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <58b57cba-c510-9760-5313-11e69feec80d@nohats.ca>
References: <171274001090.2420.10816994295519414610@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/WdCdSBAQjqNpumOrDmE7ciloXjs>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-06
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:00:31 -0000
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Marcus Ihlar via Datatracker wrote: Thanks for your review. > Load balancing algorithms and policies are > likely best left as implementation details but I do think a paragraph in the > operational considerations section could be warranted. We had some Linux details in there before but were asked to remove those and some people wouldn't implement it similarly. So I am not sure what you would want to add in the operational considerations section. Paul
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-i… Marcus Ihlar via Datatracker
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review… Paul Wouters
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review… Marcus Ihlar
- Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review… Steffen Klassert