[IPsec] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker writes: > The document shepherd writeup says: > > -- > 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? > > Yes. > -- > > I'm assuming the shepherd just ran over the question too quickly. > But, if you really meant "Yes" here, what's the plan to fix it? No, the document did have incorrect split when I reviewed the document during the shepherd writeup, as can be seen from my email to authors: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/eua5PlKQtlWA6Ni7PJRHukPbmsg/ but I still sent the document forward as this is something that can be fixed later, and did not want to delay publication while waiting the authors to fix these kind of issues. The authors published -06 version immediately after that which fixed the normative and informative references split: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-05=draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-06=--html -- kivi...@iki.fi ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[IPsec] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08: 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 https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic/ -- COMMENT: -- The document shepherd writeup says: -- 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? Yes. -- I'm assuming the shepherd just ran over the question too quickly. But, if you really meant "Yes" here, what's the plan to fix it? Section 7 says: "All entries not mentioned here should receive no value in the new Status field." Why not have a status of "current" or something definite? ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
