Kevin:
> This is probably my fault. I didn't think it was wise to submit a
> new version of the I-D until all of the comments & corrections had
> been collected. I didn't want folks trying to review a moving target,
> especially since a change in paragraph A might affect the interpretation
> of
This is probably my fault. I didn't think it was wise to submit a
new version of the I-D until all of the comments & corrections had
been collected. I didn't want folks trying to review a moving target,
especially since a change in paragraph A might affect the interpretation
of paragraph B.
-
I am looking at this draft in order to fill in my recommendations for tonight’s
IESG telechat.
Ben, thank you for your review which pointed out worries (and I agreed with
those), and thank you Kevin for the responses (which made sense to me).
However, in addition to the major/minor issue discus
Hi Kevin,
For the record, based on your comments I now consider the SSRC text to be a
minor issue rather than a major one.
Comments inline (again, deleting parts that seem closed)
On Sep 18, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Igoe, Kevin M. wrote:
[...]
>
> Does the "source" in each source mean the synch
Ben:
Comment inline. As I mention below, the fact that SRTP places
key management out of scope is an annoyance when dealing with
SSRC management.
+--
Kevin M. Igoe | "We can't solve problems by using the same kind
kmi...@nsa.g
Hi, thanks for the response. Further comments inline. I will remove sections
that do not appear to need further comment:
On Sep 15, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Igoe, Kevin M. wrote:
> Ben et al:
>
> Here is the reasoning behind some of the issues you raise. At least one
> of them (SSRC re-use) is secu
Ben et al:
Here is the reasoning behind some of the issues you raise. At least one
of them (SSRC re-use) is security critical.
=
SSRC Management:
"If I read this section correctly, the draft requires central management