Subject: [babel] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 19:46:48 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-14: Abstain

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-babel-rfc6126bis/

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

Part of the response to my DISCUSS argued that making this specification comply
with BCP 61 would harm the reputation of the IETF. I'd rather continue to
support BCP 61 than have this protocol standardized in the IETF, if that is
what the choice is. If the WG consensus is that deploying this protocol with no
MTI security protections is appropriate despite the mountain of evidence that
exists showing that deployments of insecure protocols on private networks or in
limited domains still often get compromised, I don't see a need to discuss this
further.