Subject: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-fedyk-ipsecme-mib-iptfs

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:29:27 +0200

This is the start of 2 week WG adoption call for this document ending
2021-03-22. Please send your reply about whether you support adopting
this document as WG document to this list.

This is part of the Traffic Flow Confidentiality work in the charter.
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:23:40 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> Subject: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-fedyk-ipsecme-mib-iptfs
> 

I am fine with adoption.

I would use "Bytes" instead of "Octects" for the byte counters. And I
don't see any idletime counters? There are usually also soft and hard
limits which I don't see support for here? Either add those, or clarify
what values are expected if your implemention supports soft/hard limits.

Paul

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 17:03:47 -0500

> I would use "Bytes" instead of "Octects" for the byte counters.

The use of the word "octets" is traditional in MIB documents, going back to
the 1980s, when ASN.1 originated.
Some machines had 9-bit bytes and 36-bit words :-)

I also support adoption.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-