On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote:
Thanks for the detailed reviews Paul. I don't think the new text is changing the meaning of the text that is already there. Anyone reading either of the two, would be able to understand the point. Thus, I feel there is no need to make the new change this late in WGLC process.
This statement is incorrect from a procedural point of view. It is never too late in the WGLC for the WG to make the document better if everyone agrees. Clarifying the text before sending in onto the rest of the IETF for LC is what is supposed to happen in a working group. Especially since this was new text, and not text that has resided in many revisions before the last one. Revision numbers are cheap. Let's make our documents easier to read. I'm okay with Valerie's comment about not introducing MITM in the change. But I'd really like to say the two sentences that start with "note" to be rewritten for easier reading. Paul _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
