Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > The shepherd writeup contains this remark, which made me squint a bit: > "More security review was asked for by the WG at various [times], and > it is not clear that this input will be taken into account." Why's > that?
When I did the review of comments, there were a few comments/threads in the archives which did not clearly have a followup action/commit/diff. I am not sure if the WG decided that the comments were not relevant, or if changes were made but not acknowledged. I don't know if the commenters are happy with the result, or still waiting for a response. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
