Hi Alvaro,
Thank you very much for your detailed review.
Together with my co-authors, we have uploaded revision -27, which should
address all your comments.
The diff is at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-27
Regards,
KK
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:27 AM Alvaro Retana
Hi Roman,
Thank you very much for your detailed review.
Together with my co-authors, we have uploaded revision -27, which should
address most of your comments except a few listed below with our rationale:
** Section 2.1.5. Per “However, in scenarios where anonymity is a strong
desire
Hello Zahed,
Thank you very much for your detailed review.
Together with my co-authors, we have uploaded revision -27, which should
address all your comments.
The diff is at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-27
Regards,
KK
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 3:33 AM Zaheduzzaman
Hi Gyan,
No IPRs on my end.
Thanks,
KK
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:36 AM Gyan Mishra wrote:
> Hi Eric
>
> I am completing the Shepards writeup in essay format. Plan to submit in
> the next few days.
>
> As far as WG consensus and history on the document from its initial I-D
> state were there
Dear Opsec WG,
The co-chairs assessed the discussion on the list and now feel that there
was sufficient review to move this document forward.
Thanks,
KK (as Opsec WG co-chair)
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, KK Chittimaneni kk.chittiman...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Opsec WG,
The WGLC
Dear Opsec WG,
The WGLC for this draft technically ended last month with just one response
received. Not enough to move forward.
The co-chairs chatted about this and noted that there was a lot more
support for this doc during earlier stages. Given that, we'd like to give
the WG a bit more time
