Hi Ted, Tom submitted revision 20 of the document a couple of days after your email below. At this point, there are no discusses in the tracker. I guess it is time to press the "approve" button.
Cheers, Gonzalo On 28/10/2014 8:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 28, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Tom Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> While I am sympathetic to Rene's argument in 1), no one else has supported >> this change on the list, so given the late stage of this document, I would >> suggest to keep the encoding as is. The changes proposed in 2) and 3) are >> editorial, in my view, so I don't see a problem to accept them. > > I would definitely concur with this. This is not the time to do further > engineering. > >> I regenerated the diff according to Rene's suggestions, and posted it here: >> >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre-2.diff >> >> So in summary, I would like to now convey to our AD that we have a diff to >> the version -19 draft that is editorial/clarification in nature, and ask >> whether and how it can be handled procedurally, such as: >> >> - publish a -20 and revisit some of the reviews (since version -19 was >> officially reviewed and approved, I don't know what it means to now post a >> -20 version) >> - avoid publishing a -20 and handle these changes similar to AUTH48 changes >> - scrap the diff and just publish version -19 >> >> Our AD can let us know how he prefers to handle it. > > I would prefer that you publish the -20. Assuming that that is the working > group's final say, we can then push the publish button. > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
