Subject: RE: [Sigtran] comment on draft-ietf-sigtran-security-o3.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:29:54 +0200

Hi Joachim,

This document has already been accepted by the IESG, it is currently
in the RFC editor's queue.  I don't think we can make changes at this
point.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> ext Poetzl, Joachim
> Sent: 10 December, 2003 16:44
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sigtran] comment on draft-ietf-sigtran-security-o3.txt
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> in my opinion the abstract of the document should be altered 
> that it is in the notion of content of the document.
> 
> As the main goal of the document is to recommend the minimum 
> security means that a SIGTRAN node must implement in order to 
> achieve a secured communication and not to make an 
> alternative mandatory. Therefore the abstract should  read:
> 
> Abstract 
> This documents discusses how TLS and IPsec can be used to 
> secure the communication for SIGTRAN protocols. 
> 
> The support of IPsec is mandatory for all nodes running 
> SIGTRAN protocols and the support of TLS is optional in order 
> to achieve secured communication.
> 
> alternative for 2nd sentence:
> 
> It is recommended that the support of IPsec is mandatory for 
> all nodes running SIGTRAN protocols and the support of TLS is 
> optional .
> 
> 
> > Best Regards
> > 
> > Joachim Pötzl
> Deutsche Telekom AG
> T-Com Zentrale
> T332-4; Signalling, Gateways and Switching Systems
> 64307 DARMSTADT, GERMANY 
> Phone:  +49 6151 83-2134
> Fax:      +49 6151 83-4577
> PCFax:  +49 521 52244 983
> > mailto:[email-masked] 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> 

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