Assuming this is agreed upon by the working group, getting the text to be added along with a diff of the draft will be helpful to share with the IESG. They will want a quick look to make sure they agree, but it sounds like this makes sense.
Thanks, Kathleen Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > >> On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Valery Smyslov <sva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Tero, >> >>> This is also question what should we do for the rfc5996bis. >>> We have two options, we removed the text saying section 2.9.2 was >>> added in the RFC5996, or we add the section 2.9.2 from the ticket #12, >>> and add note that saying that this time we really added it... >>> What does the working group feel we should do? Note, that if we add >>> the 2.9.2 that might cause delays, as I am not sure if we can do that >>> kind of change after IESG has already approved the rfc5996bis (it is >>> now in the AUTH48), meaning it might need IESG to recheck that part. >>> On the other hand I think adding the text which we already have >>> approved in 2009 to the specification would be the right thing to do, >>> as there clearly is need for clarification (as we can see from the >>> Dammvik's question). >> >> I think we should add this text. The text is useful and I don't see >> a reason to sacrifice it in favour to speed up RFC publication. >> >> Regards, >> Valery. >> >>> kivi...@iki.fi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPsec mailing list >> IPsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
