Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Robert,

was this a response to my answer; or did our answers cross?
My intentions was to pass over the old comments quickly;

Peter

Robert Cragie schreef op 2015-07-28 10:18:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Please see inline for specific responses.
> 
> Regarding the old comments: We have tried to respond to these issues
> in previous follow up e-mails and modify the document in accordance
> with the responses. Repeating these old comments suggests that neither
> those responses nor the updated text have been read yet. Please can
> you read the responses and updated text before simply repeating these
> comments? Otherwise I can't see how we can make any progress on this.
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 25 July 2015 at 15:08, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: 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-roll-applicability-home-building/
>> 
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Thanks for the discussion about security. I didn't check
>> if the comments below were handled in -12, happy to
>> chat about that if you want.
>> 
>> First two comments are about text that's new in -11:
>> 
>> - 4.1.8: "MUST be present" is ambiguous - do you mean
>> it must be used? I think you do.
> 
> <RCC>This has been changed to "MUST be used on all nodes" in -12</RCC>
> 
>> - 4.1.8: "MUST be distributed or established in a
>> secure fashion" isn't really a protocol requirement.
>> Do you really just mean "see 4.1.8.1" ?
> 
> <RCC>As mentioned before, this is just introductory. I suggest
> removing the sentence to close the comment.</RCC>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll