Well, I take that back. I think all these points can be slipped into
this week's update of the draft (I plan to submit that on Friday
NZ time).
Two points for the WG:
>
> — Section 3.5.1 —
>
>If there is no ACP, the protocol MUST use another form of strong
>authentication and SHOULD use
Thanks Barry. Good comments, but we have to get a new draft out
before the deadline, so I'm not sure these will all make it in
until the one after.
Regards
Brian
On 08/03/2017 15:43, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to re
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like a
