OPSAWG participants, Carlos, Adrian and Greg.
As one of the co-authors RFC 6291 I agree that it makes sense to update
RFC 6291 in this way.
In part, this draft is very close to what Greg and I tried to say in a
mail that we sent to some wg's. We saw a DETNET/RAW document that used the
acronyms iO
Hi,
I am assisting Rob Wilton with some documents, as so I am the (temporary)
responsible AD for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls
I have reviewed this document and have a few questions and comments. I
think the document generally is clear.
I can see the MUD use case for using endpoint recognition based
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-06.txt
1. Introduction
A brief overview of UDP option is provided in Section 3.
Typo, "UDP options" (plural).
The IE specified in Section 4.1 uses the new abstract data type
defined in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh
Essentially the middle of this document is missing: a summary of issues is
given and new IEs are proposed as a solution. But the issues are not developed
or explained.
1.1. Issues with ipv6ExtensionHeaders Information Elem
Hi Randy,
Please see inline …
From: Randy Bush
Date: Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 19:45
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update@ietf.org
, Mahesh Jethanandani
, Ops Area WG
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-08
hi rob,
thanks for review. apprecia
