I did send an e-mail - there is a mistake below. The suggested reference should be:
[SEP2] ZigBee Alliance, Inc. and HomePlug Powerline Alliance, Inc., "Smart Energy Profile 2 Application Protocol Standard", ZigBee Public Document 13-0200-00, 2013.
Please make sure this is used, not the one below. Thank you Robert On 13/10/2013 05:28, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
Hi, Thank you, that will be great. Best, Meral *From:*Robert Cragie [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:02 PM *To:* Meral Shirazipour*Cc:* David McGrew; [email protected]; [email protected]*Subject:* Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-07 The suggested reference is:[SEP2] ZigBee Alliance, Inc. and HomePlug Powerline Alliance, Inc., "Smart Energy Profile 2 9 Application Protocol Standard", ZigBee Public Document 13-0200-00, 2013.Then perhaps reword:"This draft is motivated by the considerations raised in the Zigbee Smart Energy 2.0 working group"to something like:"This draft is motivated by the considerations raised in the Zigbee Smart Energy 2.0 working group and specified in [SEP2]"Robert On 10/10/2013 16:32, Meral Shirazipour wrote: Hi, Thank you David. Best Regards, Meral *From:*David McGrew [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 6:10 AM *To:* Meral Shirazipour *Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> *Subject:* Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-07 Hi Meral, many thanks for the review, more inline: On 10/10/2013 03:26 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-07 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2013-10-10 IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-10 IESG Telechat date: NA Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Informational RFC but I do have some editorial comments. Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 4], is there a reason to use both "seq_num field" and "sequence_number field" ? looking at RFC 6655 suggests that the latter should be changed to match the former. -[Page 7], Section 7, Zigbee Smart Energy 2.0 working group, a reference would be useful since it is not an IETF WG. That is a good idea. I've copied Robert Cragie, who should be able to suggest a good reference. David Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com <http://www.ericsson.com>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
