[alto] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on

[Suresh Krishnan]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-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-alto-cost-calendar/



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

* Section 4.2.3. and 4.2.4.

This document uses addresses from the allocatable global unicast IPv6 space in
2000::/3 in the examples. Please use addresses from the 2001:db8::/32
documentation prefix instead for the examples as per RFC6890.

* Section 6

Any reason this document requires the use of TLS 1.2 instead of TLS 1.3?

[Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)]

Hi Suresh,

see below

Post by Suresh Krishnan
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-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.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Section 4.2.3. and 4.2.4.
This document uses addresses from the allocatable global unicast IPv6 space in
2000::/3 in the examples. Please use addresses from the 2001:db8::/32
documentation prefix instead for the examples as per RFC6890.

Thanks. Thats was an oversight. And I believe Adam noted that already as well. I will make sure this gets updated before publication.

Sabine, can you maybe fix this and quickly submit a new version?

Post by Suresh Krishnan
* Section 6
Any reason this document requires the use of TLS 1.2 instead of TLS 1.3?

That’s a citation from RFC7285. However, effectively I think it only requires TLS and as every other application that uses TLS, alto server and clients are free to implemented the newer version. I guess we could say that explicitly but it does feel like the right doc to do that.

Thanks,
Mirja

Post by Suresh Krishnan
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto