Re: [Softwires] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)

Dear Ben,

Thank you for your comments, we reply as following,

> §2: Please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174.

We have replaced RFC 2119 with RFC 8174.

> §10: "... the security concerns SHOULD be considered more carefully...":

> That seems more a statement of fact than a normative requirement. I suggest

> changing the "SHOULD" to "should".

We have changed it to “should”.

Best Regards,

Shu Yang

------------------

杨术

欧德蒙科技有限公司

This message may contain privileged and confidential information only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. 

------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Ben Campbell"<ben@nostrum.com>;
Date:  Thu, Sep 27, 2018 05:38 AM
To:  "The IESG"<iesg@ietf.org>; 
Cc:  "softwires"<softwires@ietf.org>; "draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast"<draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast@ietf.org>; "softwire-chairs"<softwire-chairs@ietf.org>; 
Subject:  [Softwires] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: 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-softwire-mesh-multicast/

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

§2: Please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174.

§10: "... the security concerns SHOULD be considered more carefully...":

That seems more a statement of fact than a normative requirement. I suggest
changing the "SHOULD" to "should".

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires