Hi Roni, Thanks for the clarification.
Yours, Daniel On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:40 AM Roni Even <ron.even....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > About the difference between the draft and RFC4303 when reading for the > first time I thought that section 7 is not the same as 2.8 in RFC4303 about > integrity only but it was my mistake. So forget this comment. Still you use > authentication while RFC4303 use integrity but the recommendation is the > same. > Roni > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Migault [mailto:daniel.miga...@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 3:53 AM > > To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org > > Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp....@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04 > > > > Hi Roni, > > > > Thanks for the review. We can of course add that RFC4303 is > authoritative in > > the main body. I will update the document. > > > > I am wondering what differences you have in mind. Of course the document > are > > different but I am wondering if there is anything we should clarify. > > > > Yours, > > Daniel > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roni Even via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > > Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 3:58 AM > > To: gen-art@ietf.org > > Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp....@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org > > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04 > > > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review result: Ready with Issues > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review > > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG > for the > > IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-?? > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review Date: 2021-04-02 > > IETF LC End Date: None > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: > > This is an early review of the draft. I find the 04 version easy to > understand but > > have one comment > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > the last paragraph in the abstract , mostly the last sentence " RFC 4303 > remains > > the authoritative description." should be in my opinion in the main body > of the > > document and not only in the abstract. I also see some difference > between the > > document and RFC4303 > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > l...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
