Dear Matthias, all
Thank you for your review and the proposals on making the draft more readable.
I will go ahead an incorporate as much as possible from your suggestions to
submit an update before the deadline on Monday.
I will keep track on commenting by using the ANIMA github:
[1]
https://gi
Dear Brian
Thanks for your feedback!
> >> Contains requirements discussion: Usually this happens in separate,
> information documents.
>
> I've never understood the advantage of separating the requirements discussion,
> which is sometimes essential to correctly understand a protocol design. IMHO
On 09-Mar-23 05:30, Matthias Kovatsch wrote:
Dear Anima WG, co-chairs, and authors
I started my shepherd review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm. I currently see the
need for some restructuring to make the draft clearer to the reader and easier
to implement. Hence my review is done as work-in-pro
Dear Anima WG, co-chairs, and authors
I started my shepherd review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm. I currently see the
need for some restructuring to make the draft clearer to the reader and easier
to implement. Hence my review is done as work-in-progress pull request in the
GitHub repo of the d
