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

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.
>
>