Hi Pasi, Thanks for the useful comments. I'm OK with all of them, except for the last one:
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 11:36 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2- > resumption > [snip] > > - Section A.1 should say that the notation used for the example ticket > formats is intended to be pseudo-code, and does not specify exact > octet-by-octet format. (And probably things like "reserved[3]" should > be removed, since they don't really belong in pseudo-code like this.) > This is an example only, but it can still be precise. It *does* specify an octet-by-octet format, except you're free to implement something else, or change whatever you feel like. In general, I think an implementer is better off starting from a precise definition than from a vague pseudo-code description. So, I propose to change the section preamble to: This document does not specify a mandatory-to-implement or a mandatory-to-use ticket format. The formats described in the following sub-sections are provided as useful examples, and implementers are free to adopt them as-is on change them in any way necessary. Thanks, Yaron
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
