Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=40aiven...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> On 6/28/21 1:23 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>>> - Is it OK that the intended status is Standards Track? Shouldn't it be
>>> BCP?
> I think because it contains IANA actions, it should be Standards Track.
Agreed.
(It would be funny for it to be Historic, but actually that's wrong)
> Listing the good new stuff does not really put the focus on the deployed
> old bad stuff. I believe it is better to focus on why IKEv1 is bad. But
> I have added a paragraph paraphrasing this text. I did not use a bullet
> list to make it more informal and not look like it is claiming a
> complete list of items.
Great.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
