Hi Murray, thank you for your comments, please see inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2022 10:32 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org; > ipsec@ietf.org; > kivi...@iki.fi > Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on > draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10: (with COMMENT) > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This document has seven authors while the RFC Editor guideline is five. Have > we considered moving a couple of them to Section 6? No comments :-) Probably my co-authors will comment on this. > While not a DISCUSS-level concern, I would really like to see more division > among the actions requested of IANA in Section 4. There are 12 actions across > two sections; it wouldn't take much to put each action in its own section, for > example. I can see in the datatracker that IANA has already indicated they > understand what's being asked of them, but still I think it's helpful to other > readers to organize it. We have divided the IANA consideration section into two parts with the following logic in mind. The main body of Section 4 lists those actions, that do allocate new codepoints. This section should be consulted by IANA when, for example, they process early allocation request. On the other hand, Section 4.1 list auxiliary actions - renaming of existing registries and adding various notes to them, - those that do not concern with actual allocation of code points. This part may be skipped when the early allocation is being done (which in fact was the case). We believe this division has its logic and won't confuse readers and IANA. Regards, Valery. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
