Re: [tcpm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-08: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

________________________________
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 4:50 AM
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Cc: The IESG; [e-mail]; tcpm-chairs; [e-mail] Extensions; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Zahed,

To your point below, yes. There is no clear need to hold this document up to be in the “group” with 793bis and there’s no reason to have this refer to the 793 draft, as it is dependent on neither vs. the original 793.

[zs] in that case, why is 793 a normative reference  here?

// Zahed

On Mar 2, 2022, at 1:53 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors/



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

Thanks for the efforts here.

Should this specification still be referring (normative) to RFC793 while 793-bis is almost complete?