Dear Authors: I am moving path-vector ahead based on the revised version (-14) that addresses my comments from the chair reviews [1,2].
Thank you for your time and attention to the draft. With respect to my comment in S6.4 in my chair review [1]: > - S6.4: Why have a mini Security Considerations paragraphs in the subsections > of S6.4, [...] You replied: > [PV] The reason of having mini security consideration paragraphs in Section > 6.4 is because the document defines two properties in Section 6.4 and the > Unified Property document asks for security consideration when defining > a new property. However, for cost type definition, such a paragraph is > not formally required so we do not include one. That is okay, I guess. Although I think that you could define a subsection in the normal Security Considerations section and have a forward reference from S6.4 to that subsection. You do not need to do this for the draft to proceed right now, but do be prepared to justify your decision when the IESG reviews the draft if they bring up this point. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/0V-LL8dk5LRvO2zQ0F6hUYwYi-g/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/6oYr0rjU9ZB_gG9muNLGrJknvPM/ - vijay
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
