Hi Mirja, On 6/28/16, 6:20 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Nit: „Further work such as [ipsecospf] would be required to support IPsec >protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4 transport.“ -> I guess that should mean >OSPFv2 here...? No - we mean “OSPFv3”. RFC 4552 only specifies Security Associations (SAs) based on IPv6 transport. Thanks, Acee > > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
