[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption - The IPv4 DHCP Options for the Internet Storage Name Service

In message <200308011354.JAA19962@ietf.org>, IESG Secretary writes:
>
>Last Call to expire on: 2003-07-22
>
>        Please return the full line with your position.
>
>                      Yes  No-Objection  Discuss  Abstain
>Steve Bellovin       [   ]     [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]


Is 3118 mandatory-to-implement or not?  I have a hard time 
understanding why it should be optional.

What are the semantics if both "Main Mode" and "Aggressive Mode" have 
the same value?  "Transport Mode" and "Tunnel Mode"?  If IKE/IPsec is 
disabled, what security should be used?  Any?  None?

The IANA Considerations section is inadequate.  First, it should state 
what registry the option code should be taken from.  Second, it should 
state what what procedure (per 2434) should be used to assign new 
values to the assorted bit fields in this option.



		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb