On 25/03/2020 16:30, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
Thanks, Gorry, for this! I support the idea of having one section with
normative requirement at the beginning. Would be nice if someone could put this
in a PR. I guess we need to add at least one more requirement on use of
security protocols at lea
Thanks, Gorry, for this! I support the idea of having one section with
normative requirement at the beginning. Would be nice if someone could put this
in a PR. I guess we need to add at least one more requirement on use of
security protocols at least.
Mirja
On 25.03.20, 17:03, "Taps on behal
As promised,
I did a review of the arch draft and the PR that was recently done.
There were comments that requested to remove some normative language
that has been implemented in the current draft - where my review agreed,
I have not commented further below. However, the latest revision, also
What shall we discuss in April? How about:
* Normative language in -arch
* Issue review
Some questions:
Is it timely to seek a deep review of -implementation?
Are there open issues to discuss from Kyle’s review of -interface?
What else?
--aaron___
Ta
HI Ekr,
I have looked at the changes in -11 of the draft and they appear to resolve
your comments below. I would appreciate feedback if you concur with my
assessment. I will however in the meantime go forward and schedule this
document for IESG evaluation. It will at the earliest be on the IE
