Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This document has seven authors while the RFC Editor guideline is five. Have we considered moving a couple of them to Section 6? While not a DISCUSS-level concern, I would really like to see more division among the actions requested of IANA in Section 4. There are 12 actions across two sections; it wouldn't take much to put each action in its own section, for example. I can see in the datatracker that IANA has already indicated they understand what's being asked of them, but still I think it's helpful to other readers to organize it. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
