Babel Routing Protocol over Datagram Transport Layer Security
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Martin Vigoureux Yes
Deborah Brungard No Objection
Alissa Cooper No Objection
Roman Danyliw (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSSes and COMMENTs.
Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for resolving my Discuss points!
Suresh Krishnan No Objection
Mirja Kühlewind (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for discussing the port assignment (again)!
Barry Leiba No Objection
Alexey Melnikov No Objection
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Comment (2019-08-06 for -07)
Please reply to the rtg-dir review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/fuvl_TQmvfqxbtq5Qv12qB_ok4M
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Comment (2019-08-05 for -07)
Thank you for the work put into this document. I have only two COMMENTs. Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 1.2 -- The text refers to the security consideration of RFC6121bis for an extended comparison of HMAC & DTLS except that there is no additional information in RFC 6121bis. -- Section 2.1 -- It is a little unclear to me whether a mix of DTLS and non-DTLS Babel nodes can exist on the same layer-2 network. I guess no (as implied later) but a clear sentence would help.