On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 10:35:01PM -0800, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: Discuss
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
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: 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
Hi Roman,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I’m currently collecting updates into https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif until the
ID submission opens again.
> On 2022-03-09, at 02:36, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
>
Dear Lars,
Thank you very much for your comments - I especially appreciated the nudge
for inclusive language and tried to address them as best as I could.
I know it was stated that there was no need to inform changes, but let me
share the PR
Fixed back in the new commit. Thank you! I wasn't sure how to react to
downref comment.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 23:39, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 11:27:40PM +, Francesca Palombini wrote:
> >
> > Just one note: for the downref to informative documents (for those
>
Hello Jean,
Thank you for your feedback on the changes.
I have updated the pull request with a new commit:
https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/102/commits/75ac0c0a86812f359471a63f6b481b0b80482b97
Responses to questions/comments are inline below.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 23:18, A. Jean
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 11:27:40PM +, Francesca Palombini wrote:
>
> Just one note: for the downref to informative documents (for those documents
> that were actually included in the text), please revert the change – RFC 6234
> and RFC 8032 were correctly referenced as normative, since they
Jean: thank you very much for your thoughtful review! Cigdem, thank you for
addressing it, I do believe it improves the document.
Just one note: for the downref to informative documents (for those documents
that were actually included in the text), please revert the change – RFC 6234
and RFC
Cigdem,
Thank you for reply and for incorporating the feedback into a PR. I have
few comments and questions below.
On 3/8/22 12:36 PM, Cigdem Sengul wrote:
Dear Jean,
Thank you for your review.
I implemented changes and prepared a pull request at:
Reviewer: Derrell Piper
Review result: Ready
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG
11 matches
Mail list logo
