Re: [manet] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Kathleen,
> 
> I wouldn't go as far as saying that "the boilerplate wasn't used";
> there was only a minor difference to the boilerplate. I am not sure
> where it came from. We copied that section from RFC6779, so my only
> guess is that the boilerplate has changed since then (but I haven't
> verified). Either way, I have prepared a new revision that uses the
> same text as in the boilerplate.

Thanks for using the updated boilerplate.

Best regards,
Kathleen 

> 
> Best regards
> Ulrich
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I'll wait for the response to Stephen's question as I also noticed the
>> boilerplate wasn't used (SecDir review did too, kinda).
>> 
>> I do appreciate the descriptions provided for the threats associated with
>> the read/write read/create objects.  Thanks for that.
>> 
>>