Responding to Spencer, Ben, and Alexy (in order).
On 16.04.18 21:09, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the T
Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:32:49PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern:
> (the authors would not have written it if no one wanted it.)
eh, that might not be a valid argument :)
> Also, one of the arguments for doing this in the router is that you can
> get more timely and precise correlation. Except that for g
I have some concerns with the document, and with the process by which we've
gotten here.
Let me recap some history. There's a lot to take
in, so I'll present concerns in point form.
First, the document.
* my "Security Considerations" text was first plagarised in draft-06,
* when I point
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes
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.
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: No Record
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:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> On 16.04.18 14:25, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> Hi Eliot,
>
> Thanks for continuing the conversation. My question is how this fits into
> the system as a whole.
>
> ISTM that there are two ways in which a MUD policy can affect the
> netw
Hi Eric,
On 16.04.18 14:25, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
>
> Thanks for continuing the conversation. My question is how this fits
> into the system as a whole.
>
> ISTM that there are two ways in which a MUD policy can affect the
> network's behavior:
>
> - Additive -- it lets the device do th
I haven't balloted yet, and this is EKR's ballot thread, but one point is
worth bringing up here ...
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
>
> Thanks for continuing the conversation. My question is how this fits into
> the system as a whole.
>
> ISTM that there are tw
Hi Eliot,
Thanks for continuing the conversation. My question is how this fits into
the system as a whole.
ISTM that there are two ways in which a MUD policy can affect the network's
behavior:
- Additive -- it lets the device do things it otherwise might not be
permitted to do (e.g., accept inco
> iff i can select which community's or communities' values form the sampling
> bucket(s), this seems reasonable. if i am community transparent, i probably
> don't want a bucket for each community on my inbound set.
Yes, this sounds better. It can be achieved by configuring the intermediate
proc
10 matches
Mail list logo