Hi, thank you. Best, Meral
> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Migault > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:08 PM > To: Meral Shirazipour <[email protected]>; draft-ietf- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05 > > Hi Meral, > > Thank you for the review and your comments. As submission tool is closed > until the next IETF, I have not been able to submit the updated version. This > will be done as soon as the IETF starts. Please see inline my response. > > Yours, > Daniel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Meral Shirazipour [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:22 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for > the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05 > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > Review Date: 2017-03-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-15 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16 > > Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards RFC, but I have > some comments. > > Major issues: > Minor issues: > Nits/editorial comments: > -[Page 4], "downgraded from MUST to MUST-". MUST- is defined later in the > document. Perhaps a reference in the text should point to that section on > p.5. > > MGLT: > Here is what I propose: > > OLD text: > """ > Unless there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be > downgraded from MUST to MUST- or SHOULD, instead of MUST NOT. > """ > > NEW text: > """ > Unless there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be > downgraded from MUST to MUST- or SHOULD, instead of MUST NOT (See > Section 2 for a definition of the terminology). > > """ > > -[Page 7], "were not been mentioned"---->"have not been mentioned" > > MGLT: corrected > > -[Page 7], "this document clarify"---->"this document clarifies" > > MGLT: corrected > > -[Page 11], "that revisions of that"---->"that revisions of this" > > MGLT: corrected > > -general, some acronyms are not spelled out...VPN, MTU.. > > MGLT: These are the acronyms I found, the following acronyms: > UNSPECIFIED. CPU IKEv2 IANA VPN PFS AEAD All have been spelled out > except IANA and CPU and UNSPECIFIED. I added a reference to RFC7296 at > the first IKEv2 instance > > > -Tables P.5,6,8,9,10. Giving them a caption would make the document clearer > > MGLT: I added the titles, but the output was pretty ugly (in my opinion) due > to the postambules. As titles repeat the section title I preferred to remove > the titles and let a note to the RFC editor to do what seems to him the most > appropriated way to present the tables. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
