Hi Bob, From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 8:33 PM
To: Valery Smyslov <valery@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 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, On 25/07/2022 06:46, Valery Smyslov wrote: Hi Bob, please see inline. 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).
Thank you, my concerns are resolved. How does this formally close off? Do you change the status of your review from "Has Issues"?
I cannot do it, by hopefully the security ADs will take the result of our discussion into consideration.
Regards,
Valery.
Bob
[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/ |
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
