Re: [Last-Call] [tsvwg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-26

[Bob Briscoe <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Valery,

On 25/07/2022 06:46, Valery Smyslov wrote:

Hi Bob,

 

please see inline.

 

From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 12:36 AM
To: Valery Smyslov; 'Valery Smyslov'; secdir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; tsvwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [tsvwg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-26

 

Valery, see [BB3]

          [snipped]

 

[Snipped conversation about integrity of congestion notifications, given agreement reached]

 

          I only want to be sure that you removed reference to AH and replaced it with ESP or with generic term IPsec.

          As I wrote, AH is almost dead in real life.

    [BB] Thank you yes, of course. I've described it as 
        "...or end-to-end IPsec integrity protection [RFC4303]".
    so the intended security property is clear (from the English), and
    the intended mechanism is clear (from the citation of ESP).
    
    How does this formally close off? Do you change the status of your
    review from "Has Issues"?
    
    
    Bob

       [snipped]

 

[BB3] Yes, fully converged. Thank you again.

 

          Agreed (but see above). Thank you!

 

          Regards,

          Valery.

Bob

-- 

________________________________________________________________

Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

-- 

________________________________________________________________

Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

-- 

________________________________________________________________

Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
  

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call