Subject: [sfc] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:32:52 -0500

As you can see below, the SFC Chairs have started the WG last Call for 
the nsh-integrity draft.  Please respond.
Thank you,
Joel

-------- Forwarded Message -------

The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity has been changed to "In WG
Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity/

Comment:
This starts the SFC Working Group last call for the NSH integrity protection
document.  This will run through the end of the day February 11, 2021. 
(Don't worry about time zone.  If it is still Feb 11 2021 somewhere in the
world, you can send in comments.)  Please respond.  Silence is not consent,
and when (if, but we hope when) we send this to the AD, we need to be 
able to
describe meaningful WG support for the publication.  And if possible, more
than just +1.

Thank you,
Joel (and Jim)

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:19:38 -0800

Dear Authors,
I appreciate your kind consideration of my comments on the draft. I've
reviewed the updates. It all looks good. I might have a small question
about the case of IV Length = 0. The updated text suggests:
       If encryption is not used, IV length is set to zero
       (that is, no "Initialization Vector" is included).
As I understand it, that means that the IV Length field is immediately
followed by the padding as explained in the last paragraph in Section 5:
   The "MAC and Encrypted Metadata" Context Headers are padded out to a
    multiple of 4 bytes as per Section 2.2 of [RFC8300].
Is that correct?

And yes, I support progressing this document to publication.

Regards,
Greg

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:33 AM Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:

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