Re: IESG review of: draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-06.txt

Hi,

At the GSMP WG in Vienna last week, I tried to get feedback on the 
proposed text that Bert sent out. While no one opposed, and at least one 
of the authors agreed to the text, I would like to hear the opinion from 
others, at least from the members of the design team. And please answer 
to the list...

Cheers,
Ken

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

>The IESG yesterday discussed this documment.
>With the following RFC-Editor note the document can be
>approved. Before we send out that approval, we'd like
>to give GSMP WG a chance to review and let us know if
>this is OK. 
>
>Pls check if I did correctly expand DCN
>
>RFC-Editor notes:
>
>1) Third paragraph of section 2.5 - expand DCN.
>   OLD:
>     used in legacy DCN environments that use OSI CLNP.
>   NEW:
>     used in legacy Data Communication Network (DCN) environments
>     that use OSI CLNP.
>
>2) For section 2.5 -  Add a final paragraph:
>
>   The security risks of additional non-IP encapsulations MUST be
>   described, since the mandatory to implement mechanism of IPsec
>   is not available for these control channels, as in the RFC 3293
>   Ethernet and ATM cases.  It is in scope to perform risk analysis
>   and describe if mechanisms for link-level security mitigate the
>   risk.
>
>
>3) reword text in section 3.3
>
>   OLD:
>     A retransmission policy should be used if no reply is 
>     received for a  message with "AckAll" set.
>   NEW:
>     A retransmission policy with a well-designed exponential
>     backoff should be used if no reply is received for a
>     message with "AckAll" set.
>
>Bert and Allison
>
>_______________________________________________
>GSMP mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp
>

-- 

Kenneth Sundell
Sr. Protocols Architect
CTO/ATI Strategic Protocols
Nortel Networks (Sweden)
ESN 521-3538, Ext IAC+46 8 5088-3538