On Sun, 27 Jun 2021, Dan Harkins wrote:
Thanks for facilitating this discussion (especially given the editor's issues with interacting with me).
I don't want to keep focussing on this, but again I need to defense myself. I have no issues with interacting with you on public mailing lists. I have a personal opinion that your behaviour has been inappropriate enough towards me and other groups of people that I wish no longer interact with you via non-public emails. I believe that is within my rights. This does not interfere with me responding to on topic discussion where I am acting in an official IETF capacity, such as Document Author or Working Group Chair.
Yes, the unaddressed points are in the 3rd email. Everything above the "there is another IKEv1 feature not available in IKEv2" line are my unresolved comments, everything below that is further discussed in the final 2 emails and is not relevant to the comments I made on the draft. Basically, I want to get rid of the speculative language and the guesswork language which is not really even necessary to make the case. I also provided 2 reworded paragraphs which I think improve the draft and are more clear. Of course, that's my opinion, it's open to debate and disagreement, but if others agree with me then I think these changes should be adopted by the editor.
At the time, I was waiting for more comments before updating the document. I have now pushed these changes. I've taken in some text of Dan, although I did not remove everything he suggested removing because I deem those bits have value to bring across. If other people wish to chime in, that would be useful to determine consensus. The changes to the document are minor, so I think this can be evaluated as part of this WGLC, but the final decision on that rests with the chairs. https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-01 Paul _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
