I did change this to no objection as soon as I noticed I forgot to click the button.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]> wrote: > Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-05: No Record > > 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Nit that I'm sure the RFC editor would have caught: > Last paragraph at the bottom of Page 4, so is repeated: > "Minimal implementations only need to support the role of initiator, > so so it" > > I'm fine with this being informational since it just describes a proof of > concept implementation specific to lwig use cases of an existing > standards track RFC. It does explicitly state that the referenced RFC is > normative and any updates to that RFC would likely not apply to this one > unless an updated POC is done and that might mean a new draft (I > suspect). > > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
