IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 09 November 2021 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A623A0CFB for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 06:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL=1.31, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eegjTQgJC__B for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 06:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D93FD3A0CBE for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 06:00:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2617418083 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:02:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id XJk3aJsiqT_4 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:01:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B6E18015 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:01:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C7385F for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:00:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <24969.30411.814431.153696@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <24969.30411.814431.153696@fireball.acr.fi>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 09:00:03 -0500
Message-ID: <32581.1636466403@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/x7aDzmxYR3qkuP0itXvwuDSSHM4>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 14:00:12 -0000

I have reviewed the diff at:
  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8229&url2=draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-01

and the update seems like a good job to me.

I wonder about keeping more of the original authors on the new document,
since it is substantively the same document.  I can not judge what their
contribution was to the original document, nor do I know if they were asked.
If the design team has gone through this consideration, then that's enough
for me.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email