Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2017-01-09 Thread Waltermire, David A. (Fed)
y 06, 2017 4:01 PM To: p...@nohats.ca<mailto:p...@nohats.ca> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org<mailto:ipsec@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca<mailto:p...@nohats.ca>> wrote: On Fri, 6 Jan 2017

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2017-01-09 Thread Kathleen Moriarty
:* Friday, January 06, 2017 4:01 PM > *To:* p...@nohats.ca > *Cc:* ipsec@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 J

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2017-01-09 Thread Waltermire, David A. (Fed)
starting ASAP this week. Can you hold 4307bis for a bit to have the two run concurrently? Thanks, Dave From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 4:01 PM To: p...@nohats.ca Cc: ipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2017-01-06 Thread Kathleen Moriarty
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > > I never got an answer as to whether or not I should wait on the last call, >> so I pushed it through. No comments >> came in during the holiday period. Should last call be

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2017-01-06 Thread Paul Wouters
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: I never got an answer as to whether or not I should wait on the last call, so I pushed it through.  No comments came in during the holiday period.  Should last call be extended?  Or does the WG feel the reason was because the document is ready?  If

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2017-01-06 Thread Kathleen Moriarty
Hello, I never got an answer as to whether or not I should wait on the last call, so I pushed it through. No comments came in during the holiday period. Should last call be extended? Or does the WG feel the reason was because the document is ready? If the latter then I'll get it ready for an

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2016-12-16 Thread Kathleen Moriarty
Hi Paul, Thanks for your response and sorry for my delayed response. On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > > Hello, >> Thanks for your work on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis. I reviewed the >> draft and just have a

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2016-12-12 Thread Paul Wouters
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: Hello, Thanks for your work on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis.  I reviewed the draft and just have a few questions, the first is a nit. Nit: In the second paragraph of 1.3, you can drop the last two words of this sentence as they are redundant:

[IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

2016-12-09 Thread Kathleen Moriarty
Hello, Thanks for your work on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis. I reviewed the draft and just have a few questions, the first is a nit. Nit: In the second paragraph of 1.3, you can drop the last two words of this sentence as they are redundant: This document does not give any recommendations