Paul, Many thanks for a careful reading. (This review raised questions that you could probably have sent to [email protected] as well, as part of last call.)
And thanks Simon for addressing the questions Paul had! With respect to the Information status, as explained this is indeed the IETF tradition. And non-Standards Track in general doesn’t mean that there is no spec to follow; it means that there’s no current IETF standard or recommendation in the area. So I think Informational is fine for this doc. I think most of the other things were resolved, particularly the one about Integrity. I think the type mismatch is OK, but I had some other issues when reading through the spec, possibly confusions due to the notation and identifiers chosen. Will send a Discuss on those, hopefully you can answer or edit quickly and I can clear. Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
