Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swima-patnc-02

Hi Charles. This paragraph is very reasonable and informative for all audiences. Thanks again. Dan On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Schmidt, Charles M. wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > > Thanks for your response. I agree on all points. I'll add the following > paragraph to the

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swima-patnc-02

Dan, thank you for your review. I don’t think your major issues are quite DISCUSS-worthy, but I’ve called them out in my No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Feb 18, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Dan Romascanu wrote: > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swima-patnc-02

Hi Dan, Thanks for your response. I agree on all points. I'll add the following paragraph to the end of the introduction: "Part of the motivation for the development of SWIMA was to support the IETF’s Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) architecture. More details about

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swima-patnc-02

Hi Charles, Thank you for your response and for addressing my comments. I feel that they are largely addressed by your proposed resolution. See also in-line. Regards, Dan On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Schmidt, Charles M. wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks a bunch for the

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swima-patnc-02

Hello, Thanks a bunch for the comments. I'm glad that you feel that it looks like a solid contribution. With regard to your feedback, I have developed wording to address both your major concerns and wanted to run it by you: --- With regard to the lack of mention of SACM, I agree that it was