Paul, Many thanks for a careful reading. (This review raised questions that you could probably have sent to i...@ietf.org as well, as part of last call.)
And thanks Simon for addressing the questions Paul had! With respect to the Information status, as explained this is indeed the IETF tradition. And non-Standards Track in general doesn’t mean that there is no spec to follow; it means that there’s no current IETF standard or recommendation in the area. So I think Informational is fine for this doc. I think most of the other things were resolved, particularly the one about Integrity. I think the type mismatch is OK, but I had some other issues when reading through the spec, possibly confusions due to the notation and identifiers chosen. Will send a Discuss on those, hopefully you can answer or edit quickly and I can clear. Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
