Hi Jari,
Yes, the editorial comments are on my TODO for the next version. And
thanks Meral!
Best,
Yaron
On 10/16/2014 07:36 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Thanks for your review. (Have the authors seen the editorial nits? None of them
are significant to worry about, but just wanted to ensure
Hi Robert, Peter,
I don't recall a previous discussion of DTLS 1.0. But after looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datagram_Transport_Layer_Security#Implementations,
I agree that we should mandate DTLS 1.2 and make DTLS 1.0 a SHOULD NOT,
similarly to older versions of TLS.
Thanks,
Hi Joel,
Thanks for your review!
I would appreciate an example of an existing RFC that documents an
implementation, so we can refer to it in the text.
Best,
Yaron
On 04/22/2016 09:05 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Interesting. I was looking at bullet 4 in section 3, which reads "At
lea
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your review!
Your comments are addressed by the following commit:
https://github.com/yaronf/I-D/commit/d00674b352f6e1323da8c5b6600f1f0d7e9b64b1
Please let us know if any issues remain.
Best,
Yaron
On 30/03/2019 23:51, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker wrote:
R
Hi Christer,
thanks for your review!
The current (rather vague) wording is:
In addition, this section can contain information about the
interoperability of any or all of the implementations.
We could add: "including references to interoperability reports, when
such exist."
Thanks,
Sure.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 2013-04-24 15:45, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,
Could you say something like "including references to test case descriptions and
interoperability reports, when such exist."?
Regards,
Christer
-Original Message-----
From: Yaron Sheffer [mailt
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your review!
We initially chose a cleaner solution which would have required draft
merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool to depend on the current one. The authors of
that other draft requested this change so that they can move forward to
publication. I agree it's not ideal, but this ba
Thank you for the review Meral!
On 02/08/2019 10:14, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
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 l
Hi Mike,
I'm looking at the latest PR, specifically at the Poll document. I can see that
you changed the text around signing SETs, but I don't see any new (or existing)
text that requires HTTPS as you noted in your response to Robert.
I even see this new text "If SETs are transmitted over unenc
it. If you
like, I could clarify that this should never occur.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-
From: Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 8:26 AM
To: Mike Jones ; Robert Sparks
; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf
We have already addressed the GenArt comments, thank you Suresh!
I will respond to Lars's review separately.
Yaron
On 4/6/21, 15:52, "Lars Eggert" wrote:
Suresh, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this
document based on my own review.
Lars
>
Thank you Tim! Opened two issues,
https://github.com/yaronf/I-D/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABCP195
Yaron
On 5/28/22, 00:17, "Tim Evens via Datatracker" wrote:
Reviewer: Tim Evens
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. T
12 matches
Mail list logo
