Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-05: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Update: I am convinced that the standards track vs informational question was a red-herring, and therefore cleared the DISCUSS. I do still think that the current approach risks effectively forking the protocol. But I think I've made my point and leave it to the respective parties to do the Right Thing, whatever they see that to be.] I question the choice of copying IKEv2 text forward into this document, at least without clearly marking (and citing) the copied text. What happens if 7296 gets updated or obsoleted? It seems like that would effectively fork the protocol. And since this draft does not seem to distinguish copied text from new text, I wonder if the other authors of 7296 should be considered authors of this document. _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
