Hi Tero,
Thanks for these corrections. I have edited them into my working copy and will upload them with the next revision.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 2:17 PM Tero Kivinen via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Tero Kivinen
Review result: Has Nits
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document is the result of the design team chartered to work on the
common encapsulation that addresses the various technical concerns. It
does this by comparing three encapsulation protocols: Geneve, GUE, and
GPE.
The security considerations section say:
This document does not introduce any additional security constraints.
Which is true, as the document does not review the security (or lack of it)
in the encapsulation protocols, but section 6.2.2 do discuss about
security/integrity extensions. It also recommends that the "the WG work on
security options for Geneve."
Nits:
Typo in section 6.4:
/svailable/available/
Invalid capitalization of IPsec in section 6.2.2 (twice) and once in section 7.
/IPSEC/IPsec/
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
