On Oct 28, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Tom Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > While I am sympathetic to Rene's argument in 1), no one else has supported > this change on the list, so given the late stage of this document, I would > suggest to keep the encoding as is. The changes proposed in 2) and 3) are > editorial, in my view, so I don't see a problem to accept them.
I would definitely concur with this. This is not the time to do further engineering. > I regenerated the diff according to Rene's suggestions, and posted it here: > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre-2.diff > > So in summary, I would like to now convey to our AD that we have a diff to > the version -19 draft that is editorial/clarification in nature, and ask > whether and how it can be handled procedurally, such as: > > - publish a -20 and revisit some of the reviews (since version -19 was > officially reviewed and approved, I don't know what it means to now post a > -20 version) > - avoid publishing a -20 and handle these changes similar to AUTH48 changes > - scrap the diff and just publish version -19 > > Our AD can let us know how he prefers to handle it. I would prefer that you publish the -20. Assuming that that is the working group's final say, we can then push the publish button. _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
