Ben, thank you for the notice. So, it seems that my suggestion was not up-to-date wrt IPsec and AH.
-éric -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, 25 April 2020 at 23:26 To: Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, Philipp Tiesel <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-11: (with COMMENT) On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:28:18AM -0700, Tommy Pauly wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for the review! You can find an updated version of the document here: > > https://ietf-tapswg.github.io/draft-ietf-taps-transport-security/draft-ietf-taps-transport-security.html <https://ietf-tapswg.github.io/draft-ietf-taps-transport-security/draft-ietf-taps-transport-security.html> > > Responses to your specific points inline. > > > On Apr 9, 2020, at 7:38 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > -- Section 1 -- > > Is there any reason why the integrity property of IPsec AH is not mentioned ? > > Same also applies in section 2 when "security protocol" is defined. > > Added a note that AH provides integrity. I note that per https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/ykyUCKWzn9i0jBgHKhIVApJPLJk/ we may not want to be adding new mention of AH. -Ben _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
