Hello, Thanks for making most of the suggested changes to the draft. I see nothing happened in section 2.4 with the 'updates' text. Since this requires changes to the referenced draft, it's easier to just state what is being updated in the previous RFC with this draft. Could we work on that change and have it ready soon? I'd rather do this before IETF last call or in IESG review as I think it pretty clearly should be done.
The next telechat is April 9th and this won't make it on it, so there is time to get this update ready without holding up the draft. Thanks! On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Valery Smyslov <sva...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tero, > > I think the current text (with reduced "that") is grammatically correct and > its meaning is clear. However, if you think that addind "that" would > improve text clarity, I (and hopely Paul) have no objections to that. > > Regards, > Valery. > > > In the -05 version the last paragraph of the section 3 was changed, >> but I think it is missing some words: >> >> unauthenticated IKE peers. Implementations might have made >> assumptions remote peers are identified. With NULL Authentication >> >> I think it should be "Implementations might have made assumptions that >> remote peers are identified", or similar. >> -- >> 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 > -- Best regards, Kathleen
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
