Hi Authors,
Thank you for working on this document, This is my review of
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-06 draft. They are roughly divided between
COMMENT and NIT. The COMMENTs should be resolved before this document is sent
for IETF LC for publication as a Draft Standard.
-
Thanks for that. I look forward to reading the revision.
RFC 8520, if only [I do get tired of people running up 'oh my, oh my,
oh my, our certificates have been exposed!!'. My reply is usally 'so
what?'] It is a common mistake, and probably pedantic on my part. But PKI
is complicated, an
[Adding the IESG, the WG back on the thread, and changing the title to the
original thread]
> On Apr 12, 2024, at 8:32 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I’d like to step through you abstain with you. I think there are some
> misunderstandings about what is being proposed by this work.
Hi Deb,
Taking both your messages into account, I agree that we should retitle
Section 3 and make clear that we are discussing risks. I also agree
that we should clearly reference 802.1AR, and that we state it's
limitations. In brief, 802.1AR specifies the form of the Subject, the
crypto to
Thanks for the site config fix.
802.1AR you say? No mention of 802.1 in the draft at all. If the PKI
rules are different in 802, seems like that would be good to at least
mention. At least distinguish whether we are talking about L2 or L3 (or
app layer - wherever HTTPS lives)
Deb
On Thu, Apr
Inline (prefaced by [DC])
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 9:07 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Hi, Deb, thank you for the comments.
>
> Deb Cooley via Datatracker wrote:
> >
> --
> > DISCUSS:
> >
>
