Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars). There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the progress of this draft. Those comments were helpful in deciding on the language changes within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing some syntax errors.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm&f_list=opsawg&f_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm&f_list=opsawg&f_from=Randy%20Presuhn I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense. If the IESG feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it. Joe From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 08:32 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-upd...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-upd...@ietf.org>, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>, opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT) 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
