Hi,
here is my review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-13.
I didn't participate in the recent discussions,
so I'm acting here more or less like "fresh" reader.
Overall, I think that the document is in a good shape, however some
additional polishing is required to improve its clarity and elimina
This is a quick reminder that the call for WG adoption on
draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis ends on Wednesday, September 14th, 2016 at UTC
23:59.
I have not seen any support or concerns posted in response to my initial email.
While this document has received support in past meetings and discussion,
Hi,
I support adoption of this document.
Regards,
Valery.
This is a quick reminder that the call for WG adoption on draft-mglt-ipsecme-rfc7321bis ends on Wednesday, September
14th, 2016 at UTC 23:59.
I have not seen any support or concerns posted in response to my initial email. While this
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:
here is my review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-13.
I didn't participate in the recent discussions,
so I'm acting here more or less like "fresh" reader.
Thanks for the review!
Overall, I think that the document is in a good shape, however some
ad
Hi Paul,
We have kept key lengths out of the tables on purpose. It matches the
tables at IANA that also do not list separate items for different key
lengths. Would "This requirement" instead of "This requirement level"
make that more clear?
If you don't want to add key length column to the tab
