Authors,if you want to change the draft based on the sec-dir or gen-art reviews, please let me know and either send me a corresponding RFC Editor Note or tell me that you're submitting a new draft.
Lars On 2007-10-23, at 9:06, ext Tom Yu wrote:
"Bob" == Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:Bob> Tom,Bob> You're analysis of the impact on the ECN nonce is accurate. Below isBob> our reasoning for not including the ECN nonce capability in this Bob> proposal... [...] Thanks for the detailed rationale of your decision to not include the ECN nonce. Given that the question of detecting disruption of end-to-end ECN signaling within an MPLS domain occurred to me from the mention of RFC3540 in the Security Considerations, other readers of this document may have similar questions. I suggest that you add a sentence or two to the Security Considerations summarizing your decision to exclude the ECN nonce capability from this particular proposal. However, I will not object to the passage of this document if you choose not to include such a summary. ---Tom
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf