Subject: [ippm] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:26:07 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Alissa's DISCUSS.  The newly added comment in 3.6 about
transport layer encryption is egregious and should be deleted or
else some justification should be offered. I would have hoped for
a fuller exposition of the positive and negative impacts of
encryption, or none. 

- the secdir review [1] notes some nits.

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05920.html

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:11:42 -0400

Thanks for your review, Stephen
(I'm still finding them in my capacity-challenged Inbox,
it seems.)

see below,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email-masked]]
...
> transport layer encryption is egregious and should be deleted or else
> some justification should be offered. I would have hoped for a fuller
> exposition of the positive and negative impacts of encryption, or none.
[ACM] 
I think we have this resolution agreed now, with support from RFC 7312.

> archive/web/secdir/current/msg05920.html
[ACM] 
[1] much appreciated, Warren's review never reached us, so
thanks Warren!