Re: Comments on Security requirements/framework for GSE/ULE

[Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

A few quick comments...

I think figure 3 is probably too detailed for this draft, in that there
is a separate ID that describes these fields. If that were to progress
(and evolve), and you publish this here it would create confusion.

Perhaps a more overview picture would be better... based on something
like, for example:

 +-------+------+-------------------------------+------+
 | ULE   |SEC   |     Protocol Data Unit        |      |
 |Header |Header|                               |CRC-32|
 +-------+------+-------------------------------+------+

It would be worth noting that there may be other Extension headers
placed before and/or after the ULE SEC header. For example, a bridge
extension header following the security header will allow the encryption
of bridged PDUs.

I'll send NiTs to the authors,

Gorry