Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay. On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even <ron.even....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was asked to review the 08 version but my comments from 07 were not > addressed and I did not see any response. So I am resending my previous > review**** > > As for making it a standard track document, I am not sure since it looks > to me as an overview and not standard. And there is no normative language > in the document.**** > > Roni Even > It was changed to Proposed Standard because of rules around referencing it normatively from other documents that are seeking Proposed Standard status. > **** > > ** ** > > 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.**** > [...] > Minor issues:**** > > I was wondering why the “Further Discussion” section 9.3 is part of the > security section. I think it should be a separate section. > The wording of 9.3 is meant to be security-specific, but that's buried in the word "use". I'll make it more clear. > **** > > Nits/editorial comments:**** > > Section 3 the end of 2nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”**** > > Fixed. Thanks again, -MSK
