Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-19

Hi, Elwyn [ adding the WebSec mailing list ] Thanks for the review. I think the editorial comments and the un-expanded initialisms are not controversial. The text in section 4.1 contains our hard-earned consensus about maximum max-age. Perhaps your comment about section 2.1.1 can be accommodat

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-19

[ with no hats on ] inline On Jul 31, 2014, at 10:27 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >> <http://wiki.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305-10

Hi Sorry about that. I have looked over the draft looking for acronyms that were not spelled out before use, and I could find only three: AEAD, which is used unexpanded in the Abstract, but expanded before the next use in the Introduction. I thought it was acceptable to avoid expansions in the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 - resend

Hi Roni. I think I can explain one of your questions. > On 8 Apr 2016, at 5:36 PM, Roni Even wrote: >> Also note, the registry rules are: >> >> 0-191Standards ActionRefers to value of >> first byte >> 192-254 Specification Required Refers to va

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves-04

Thanks for that. For some reason gmail sent this to the spam folder. Yoav > On 7 Oct 2016, at 20:32, Kathleen Moriarty > wrote: > > Orit, > > Thanks for the review, making sure the editor see this. > > Kathleen > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Orit Levin >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves-04

Hi, Orit. I accepted most of your suggestions with a few exceptions below: > On 28 Sep 2016, at 0:30, Orit Levin 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.

RE: [Gen-art] IETF LC review: draft-nir-ikev2-auth-lt-04.txt

I have also reviewed the MOBIKE protocol, and as far as I can tell, there aims are not the same. MOBIKE aims to allow peers to continue to use existing SAs even if routing tables or IP addresses change. They seek to prevent the need for repeating the initial exchange. My draft aims to allow res

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-11

On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline: > > On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:29 PM, =JeffH wrote: > >>> -- I did not find any guidance on how to handle UAs that do not understand >>> this extension. I don't know if this needs to be normative, but