Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths-10: 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-prefix-lengths/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for resolving my (Sean's?) discuss. I've left the comments below for historical reasons. Thanks to Valery Smyslov for their secdir review. This is well outside my normal area of expertise, however I had a couple of comments. It isn't clear to me that there are no answers (which is why I didn't discuss them). Section 6: So what is the chance that this is ever used? And if used, what is the chance that it will be done properly? [according to Section 9, para 4, 'not happening anytime soon'.] Section 9: So the choices are implement this with weak or no authentication, or with complex, stronger authentication (where the struggle will be doing it securely/properly)? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
