Hi Reese, Thanks for the review.
However, I think the text is correct as is. The first part is saying the measures might not deter anyone, while the second part says they might be deterred (finding it not feasible). Nevertheless, this PR makes the sentence read a little better: https://github.com/ietf-wg-elegy/rfc8989bis/pull/17 On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:03 PM Reese Enghardt via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Reese Enghardt > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-03 > Reviewer: Reese Enghardt > Review Date: 2023-01-16 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-01-23 > IESG Telechat date: 2023-02-02 > > Summary: This document is clear and concise. It is almost ready for > publication, just one minor issue. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: > > In Section 5.1: > > "Some organizations might not > be deterred in either case, while others might now find such an > attack to not be feasible." > As the cost of the attack decreases, should the "not" be removed in the > second > part here, so it'll read "others might now find such an attach to be > feasible"? > > Nits/editorial comments: None. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
