Hi, Dan, and thanks for the review. > I do not know if this is an issue, but I am asking the question. Some > implementations are mentioned in the write-up, but they seem to have been > written and deployed based on very old versions of the document – 05 and > earlier, dating three years back. I am wondering if this is a problem of the > write-up not being updated. If not – have the changes brought to the > document since draft-05 impacted the negotiation and algorithms described in > the document?
The history here is that the working group sent the document to me at version -05, and I reviewed it and sent it back for more editorial work -- I found it very hard to read and often unclear. Unfortunately, the editorial work took two years and many revisions to complete, but I think the result is clear and easy to read, and I'm happy with the result. But that work did not make technical changes to the protocol, so implementations of -05 are still implementations of -22... unless, of course, they were based on any misunderstandings of an unclear document. I think the likelihood of that last is low, because the implementors were involved in the development of the document. On the minor issues: I'm ambivalent about changing the "must"s and "must not" to 2119 key words. I think you know that I'm not a fan of overuse of those key words. On the other hand, they do apply fine here as key words, and I have no objection to changing them. I'll leave that up to the author and shepherd. Nits 1 and 2 are correct, and should be fixed; thanks. For nit 3, I'm happy to have the acknowledgments section reflect the author's voice. Barry _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
