Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped) So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-)
What is the criterion for major issue? I'd not have thought that the issues below (which do deserve a response) would be such a big deal. I do get that various collections of IETFers will disagree about such, but I'd hope that gen-art would/could normalise it's opinion, and if this is the result, I'm surprised. Thanks, S. On 29/03/16 22:00, Roni Even wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review Date:2016-3-28 > > IETF LC End Date: 2016-4-9 > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track > RFC. > > > > > > > > Major issues: > > I am wondering why this is a standard track document and not informational > since the registration requirements are specification required. (RFC5246) > > > > I am also wondering why this document updates RFC5246 and RFC6347 > > > > Minor issues: > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
