The following errata report has been verified for RFC9291,
"A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 2 VPNs".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7163
--
Status: Verified
Type:
On Oct 13, 2022, at 4:19 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, the DHCPv6 option bytes would just be sliced
> up into 253 byte fragments, and then reassembled into DHCPv6 options.
Largely, yes.
> The radius part need not respect the DHCPv6 option boundaries, but can
Alan DeKok wrote:
> The only solution which entirely avoids the 253 octet limit is to just
> define a DHCPv6-Options attribute in RADIUS. It can carry a blob of
> DHCPv6 options, encoded as DHCPv6 options. This is behavior is
> permitted by
On Oct 13, 2022, at 10:50 AM, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> Even if longer SvcParams aren't useful in DNR, creating an encoding that
> can't carry them introduces a serious compatibility problem for systems that
> copy between SVCB, DNR, and RADIUS. What is such a tool supposed to do when
> a valid
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 7:51 AM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> I don't think we need to determine whether ECH is relevant for the DNR use
> case. Indeed, ECH as presently specified will generally fit inside the
> 250-octet limit. My point is that we are setting ourselves up for a very
> painful
I don't think we need to determine whether ECH is relevant for the DNR use
case. Indeed, ECH as presently specified will generally fit inside the
250-octet limit. My point is that we are setting ourselves up for a very
painful compatibility challenge if longer SvcParams come into use in the
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9291,
"A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 2 VPNs".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7163
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by:
Hi Mohamed,
I may well have missed some nuance in the discussion that came before, but I
found this comment interesting:
On Oct 13, 2022, at 03:41, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> This specification targets typical broadband services in which the use of ECH
> is not relevant. It does
Agreed. Rob?
Joe
From: OPSAWG on behalf of
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:29 AM
To: RFC Errata System , nmal...@ieee.org
Cc: luis-angel.mu...@vodafone.com ,
opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9291 (7162)
Hi Nikolai,
For an operator standpoint, it seems this point may not be clear enough in the
draft and at the very least would likely benefit from some text to call out the
limitation.
Joe
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Date: Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 3:41 AM
To: Ben Schwartz , Alan DeKok
Cc: Joe
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Alan DeKok
> Envoyé : jeudi 13 octobre 2022 13:40
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Ben Schwartz ; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> ; opsawg@ietf.org; rad...@ietf.org;
> a...@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Add] [OPSAWG] WG LC:
On Oct 13, 2022, at 4:11 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Alan, all,
>
> FYI, we do already have the following in the draft to pass RADIUS attributes
> in DHCPv6:
>
> In deployments where the NAS behaves as a DHCPv6 relay agent, the
> procedure discussed in Section 3 of
Hi Nikolai, all,
Thank you for reporting this.
This editorial erratum should be accepted. Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : RFC Errata System
> Envoyé : jeudi 13 octobre 2022 13:23
> À : rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> Cc : nmal...@ieee.org; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
>
From: tirumal reddy
Sent: 13 October 2022 07:57
Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will fix the references identified by Tom.
-09 looks better.
I still see a mix of TLS-1.2 and TLS-1-2; I am not sure if there is a rationale
for that. I prefer the former but that mix of characters may
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9291,
"A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 2 VPNs".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7162
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : A YANG Model for Network and VPN Service Performance
Monitoring
Authors : Bo
From: Henk Birkholz
Sent: 12 October 2022 14:07
To: tom petch; opsawg; draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-...@ietf.org; Thomas Fossati
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07
Hi Tom,
would it be possible for you to augment your first comment with change
proposals, if possible?
Hi Alan, all,
FYI, we do already have the following in the draft to pass RADIUS attributes in
DHCPv6:
In deployments where the NAS behaves as a DHCPv6 relay agent, the
procedure discussed in Section 3 of [RFC7037] can be followed. To
that aim, Section 6.3 updates the "RADIUS
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) (D)TLS Profiles
for IoT Devices
Authors
Hi Ben, all,
This specification targets typical broadband services in which the use of ECH
is not relevant. It does not make sense for ISPs to be hosting multiple domains
on the same IP address as the encrypted DNS resolver.
Cheers,
Med
De : Add De la part de Ben Schwartz
Envoyé : mercredi
Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will fix the references identified by
Tom.
Cheers,
-Tiru
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 18:37, Henk Birkholz
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> would it be possible for you to augment your first comment with change
> proposals, if possible?
>
> @authors: it seems to me that the
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers,
-Tiru
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 22:16, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
wrote:
> Authors and contributors, please respond on-list as to whether or not you
> are aware of any IPR that pertains to this work.
>
>
>
> Please state either:
>
>
>
>
Hi Joe, all,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers,
Med
De : Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Envoyé : mercredi 12 octobre 2022 18:46
À : opsawg@ietf.org
Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-...@ietf.org
Objet : IPR POLL: draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns
Authors and
23 matches
Mail list logo
