Hi Roni, Thanks for the review. We can of course add that RFC4303 is authoritative in the main body. I will update the document.
I am wondering what differences you have in mind. Of course the document are different but I am wondering if there is anything we should clarify. Yours, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Roni Even via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 3:58 AM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp....@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04 Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2021-04-02 IETF LC End Date: None IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This is an early review of the draft. I find the 04 version easy to understand but have one comment Major issues: Minor issues: the last paragraph in the abstract , mostly the last sentence " RFC 4303 remains the authoritative description." should be in my opinion in the main body of the document and not only in the abstract. I also see some difference between the document and RFC4303 Nits/editorial comments: _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
