Subject: [dhcwg] IESG comments on draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-08.txt

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:41:49 -0400

[apologies for the earlier truncated note]

Hi.

The IESG discussed this document yesterday, and the following comments
came up.

Alex Zinin <[email-masked]> writes:

> [iSNS] is listed as non-normative. How's that possible if the opinion
> is supposedly specific for iSNS and doesn't make sense outside of iSNS
> context, i.e., iSNS needs to exist for the option to make sense.

"Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]> writes:

> 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.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg