Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points. Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS ### MIB Doctor review Like Lars, I wonder whether there was a MIB doctor review. ### Section 3.1 This text is repeated, is it on purpose ? ``` The reason 0-RTT is disallowed is that there are no "safe" messages that if replayed will be guaranteed to cause no harm at a server side: all incoming notification or command responses are meant to be acted upon only once. See Security considerations section for further details ``` ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
