[IPsec] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08: 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-ikev1-algo-to-historic/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The document shepherd writeup says:

--
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

Yes.
--

I'm assuming the shepherd just ran over the question too quickly.  But, if you
really meant "Yes" here, what's the plan to fix it?

Section 7 says: "All entries not mentioned here should receive no value in the
new Status field."  Why not have a status of "current" or something definite?