Authors,
if you want to change the draft based on the sec-dir or gen-art
reviews, please let me know and either send me a corresponding RFC
Editor Note or tell me that you're submitting a new draft.
Lars
On 2007-10-23, at 9:06, ext Tom Yu wrote:
"Bob" == Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe(_at_)jungle(_dot_)bt(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> writes:
Bob> Tom,
Bob> You're analysis of the impact on the ECN nonce is accurate.
Below is
Bob> our reasoning for not including the ECN nonce capability in this
Bob> proposal...
[...]
Thanks for the detailed rationale of your decision to not include the
ECN nonce. Given that the question of detecting disruption of
end-to-end ECN signaling within an MPLS domain occurred to me from the
mention of RFC3540 in the Security Considerations, other readers of
this document may have similar questions. I suggest that you add a
sentence or two to the Security Considerations summarizing your
decision to exclude the ECN nonce capability from this particular
proposal. However, I will not object to the passage of this document
if you choose not to include such a summary.
---Tom
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf