Ben, thank you very much for the review, and Michael, thank you for answering
and addressing the issues.
I am still concerned about the crypto profile question, however. I'd like to
understand what the lack of a profile specification means for interoperability
and the ability of others to use
comments inline.
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:10 PM
Thanks for the response! Comments inline:
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Michael Thornburgh mthor...@adobe.com wrote:
hi Ben. thanks for your review.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the continued responses. A few more comments inline. I deleted
sections that did not seem to need further comment. In summary, all of my
concerns are resolved except for the crypto profile question.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Michael Thornburgh
hi Ben. comment inline.
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:04 PM
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the continued responses. A few more comments inline. I deleted
sections that did not seem
to need further comment. In summary, all of my concerns are
hi Ben, all.
i have uploaded a new revision -08 of this draft that addresses comments raised
during the IETF Last Call, which has now concluded.
Ben: i believe the second-person voice in this memo is used exclusively for
detailing algorithms that are to be performed. i believe the imperative
Thanks for the response! Comments inline:
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Michael Thornburgh mthor...@adobe.com wrote:
hi Ben. thanks for your review. comments/replies inline.
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:07 PM
I am the
you're not the first person to be confused by that construct. i will change
instances of
MUST ONLY to is allowed only if (or similar) and remove the definition
for MUST
ONLY from Section 1.2.
I think this is an excellent idea. RFC 6919 aside (ahem), it's rarely
a good idea to try to
--On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:34 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
In RFC 2119, SHOULD and RECOMMENDED are synonymous
(they're just covering different parts of speech; they fit
differently into sentences). Changing SHOULD to
RECOMMENDED (and, of course, rewording the
I believe that it would be wise to discourage
RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED as synonyms for SHOULD and
SHOULD NOT unless they are clearly necessary to avoid awkward
sentences and the non-A/S intent is completely clear.
A fine suggestion, with which I agree.
Barry
hi Ben. thanks for your review. comments/replies inline.
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:07 PM
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07
-- Why does this need to be published as an IETF stream RFC? If I
understand correctly, this documents an existing protocol as implemented by
commercial products. I agree with Martin's comment that there is value in
publishing this sort of thing, but I applaud the Adobe and the author for
--On Thursday, June 20, 2013 22:14 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
FWIW, the IESG has discussed this in the context of other
documents, and is looking at boilerplate that does not say
that the document is a product of the IETF, and makes it
clear that the content is not a
On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
-- Why does this need to be published as an IETF stream RFC? If I understand
correctly, this documents an existing protocol as implemented by commercial
products. I agree with Martin's comment that there is value in
On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:12 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
p.s. I started a much more detailed response to Ben, but I think
the essence of it is above. IMO, a discussion that amounts to
whether or not an AD used bad judgment by choosing to sponsor an
individual Informational
15 matches
Mail list logo
