It may help to point out that the MIB module is mostly unchanged, nothing in the design or structure of the MIB module did change as far as I know.
/js On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:39:47PM +0000, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > 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 -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
