+1 to "now that you understand it, please show where you were confused before" so that we can close out the document and move it to the IETF.
--Paul Hoffman On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <sfluh...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Brown [mailto:dbr...@certicom.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:09 PM >> To: 'Michael Richardson' >> Cc: IPsecme WG; Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) >> Subject: RE: [IPsec] NUDGE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf >>> Of Michael Richardson >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:34 AM >>> >>> >>> Is the the point here is that this is safe if we do these tests. >>> >> [DB] Yes, that is the point. >> >> I gather the document's motivation was unclear to you. Were the >> document's specified actions also unclear to you? >> >> Could you suggest a specific clarification to the document that would correct >> what made it unclear to you? > > It would be of great help if you (Michael) could explain what was unclear. > > The entire point of this draft is to explain how to do some cryptographical > checks to someone who is not familiar with cryptography. Hence, any complaint > of "I didn't understand that" is valid; it shows that we weren't as clear as > we hoped. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
