Yes, this looks good! I think both RFCs in the columns makes sense. I agree that this looks ready for WGLC.
Tommy > On Jul 20, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Tero Kivinen wrote: > >> In the end I think the best option would be to just include both RFCs >> in the references column, i.e. make the final table to be something >> like this: >> >> Number Name ESP Reference IKEv2 Reference >> ... >> 18 ENCR_AES_GCM_8 [RFC4106][RFCXXXX] [RFC5282][RFCXXXX] >> 19 ENCR_AES_GCM_12 [RFC4106][RFCXXXX] [RFC5282][RFCXXXX] >> 20 ENCR_AES_GCM_16 [RFC4106][RFCXXXX] [RFC5282][RFCXXXX] >> ... >> 25 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_8 [RFC5529][RFCXXXX] - >> 26 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_12 [RFC5529][RFCXXXX] - >> 27 ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_16 [RFC5529][RFCXXXX] - >> >> where the RFCXXX would be this RFC. > > Works for me. > >> Check out the IANA considerations section and comment if there is >> something you are not happy about. > > Looks good. (the word "does" is a little weird but the RFC Editor can > reword it) > > I believe this document is ready for WGLC, > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
