Subject: [OSPF] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 03:20:33 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-09: 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-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/

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

Nit: „Further work such as [ipsecospf] would be required to support IPsec
protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4 transport.“ -> I guess that should mean
OSPFv2 here...?

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:58:15 +0000

Hi Mirja,

>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/

No - we mean “OSPFv3”. RFC 4552 only specifies Security Associations (SAs)
based on IPv6 transport.

Thanks,
Acee 

>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf