Hi Daniel, About the difference between the draft and RFC4303 when reading for the first time I thought that section 7 is not the same as 2.8 in RFC4303 about integrity only but it was my mistake. So forget this comment. Still you use authentication while RFC4303 use integrity but the recommendation is the same. Roni
> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Migault [mailto:daniel.miga...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 3:53 AM > To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp....@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04 > > 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
