Hi Tom, Thanks for clarifying this, now we completely understand these two comments. We will update the next version of the draft accordingly.
Regards, Fernando. El mié., 23 sept. 2020 a las 12:39, tom petch (<daedu...@btconnect.com>) escribió: > On 23/09/2020 07:16, Fernando Pereñíguez García wrote: > > Hi Tero, > > > > Thank you very much for your clarification. We will update reference RFC > > 822 accordingly in our draft. > > > > Tom, you proposed us to replace RFC 822 with 2822, but it is also > obsoleted > > by 5322. So, if you agree, we will reference RFC 5322 instead. > > That is fine by me; my comment was that RFC822 is obsoleted by RCC2822 > so you should consider a more up-to-date version not that RFC2822 was > the correct update! > > You said previously that you did not understand my comment on RFC6020 in > IANA Considerations. It is fine. What I was trying to say is that in > most places, RFC7950 is the better reference so RFC6020 should not be > used but for IANA Considerations, RFC6020 is the better reference so > when updating elsewhere in the I-D, leave IANA Considerations alone. > > Tom Petch > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Pereñíguez García, PhD Department of Sciences and Informatics University Defense Center, (CUD), Spanish Air Force Academy, MDE-UPCT C/ Coronel Lopez Peña, s/n, 30720, San Javier, Murcia - SPAIN Tel: +34 968 189 946 Fax: +34 968 189 970 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
