Hello Francis,
Now I see what gave you a pain... A series of unfamiliar abbreviations
may hamper readability. Please take a look at the following style. The
key words below are spelled out:
MN -> mobile node
P/N-AN -> previous/new access network
P/NMAG-> previous/new MAG
etc.
If the revised styl
Hi,
thanks for the review. I discussed this briefly with Ghyslain and we
agree with your comments.
Regarding the interop-difference from 4995, we'll add a sentence to the
introduction as suggested.
Is it sufficient to update both this and the IANA allocation during
AUTH48 as we will anyway updat
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:02:53PM +, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Nico,
>
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
> >>13.3. Additional Recommendations
> >>
> >> If the application requires security layers then it MUST prefer the
> >> SASL "GSSAPI" mechanism over "GS2-KRB5" or "GS2-KRB5-PLUS".
> >>
> >>S
Hi Nico,
Nicolas Williams wrote:
13.3. Additional Recommendations
If the application requires security layers then it MUST prefer the
SASL "GSSAPI" mechanism over "GS2-KRB5" or "GS2-KRB5-PLUS".
Spencer (minor): If "prefer the mechanism" is the right way to describe
this, I apologize, but
Thanks for your review.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 03:19:04PM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 1. Introduction
>
> The GS1 bridge failed to gain wide deployment for any GSS-API
> mechanism other than The "Kerberos V5 GSS-API mechanism" [RFC1964]
>
> Spencer (nit): s/The "Kerberos/"The Kerberos/
Hi Authors,
I think it is best that you submit a new version. Otherwise you will get
comments on this also from IESG members. That will consume more time
than what submitting a new version will take.
/Magnus
Kristofer Sandlund skrev:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the review. I discussed this briefly wit
