Hi Samuel,
Thanks for the review.
Is there a way to present this information more compactly? I suggest
a table with routing protocol on one axis, crypto suite on another,
and requirement status in the elements (perhaps with a cite
to the doc
that sets the requirement). You might separely say "MANDATORY to
implement, OPTIONAL to use, NOT SUGGESTED for use".
This is precisely what we were doing till the OPSEC WG members asked us to
change the format to the current one.
You could also put suggestions and speculation about the
future in the
same table, though you may need to define some terms. And it
We were using extended 2119 terms like SHOULD+, MUST- and MAY+ originally and
these were again removed because of the strong consensus in the WG in favor of
the current text.
needs to
be clear when this doc diverges from past ones or makes a new
statement. I have not gone back through the previous docs to confirm
that this doc isn't changing anything.
I see a whole bunch of lower case "may" and "should", and I'm
wondering what to make of them.
In describing each routing protocol's authentication options,
it would
be helpful to say whether there's any in-band negotiation available.
I am not sure I understand whats being meant by in-band negotiation here?
If so, more needs to be said about that in the security
considerations. If not, it should be documented here.
I don't need to hear three or four separate times that cleartext
passwords are bad.
Just making sure that folks don't miss this! :)
Minor: remove citations from the abstract (per rfc editor policy).
Sure, will do.
Cheers, Manav
-- Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf