+1 On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tero, > >> This is also question what should we do for the rfc5996bis. >> We have two options, we removed the text saying section 2.9.2 was >> added in the RFC5996, or we add the section 2.9.2 from the ticket #12, >> and add note that saying that this time we really added it... >> What does the working group feel we should do? Note, that if we add >> the 2.9.2 that might cause delays, as I am not sure if we can do that >> kind of change after IESG has already approved the rfc5996bis (it is >> now in the AUTH48), meaning it might need IESG to recheck that part. >> On the other hand I think adding the text which we already have >> approved in 2009 to the specification would be the right thing to do, >> as there clearly is need for clarification (as we can see from the >> Dammvik's question). > > I think we should add this text. The text is useful and I don't see > a reason to sacrifice it in favour to speed up RFC publication. > > Regards, > Valery. > >> [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
