Thanks Tommy for the detailed review. Proposed changes look good to me.
Cheers,
-Tiru
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 22:03, Tommy Pauly
wrote:
> I’ve done a review pass of this document. In general, I think it is
> technically good.
>
> I did find several places where I think additional clarity or edit
Hi Tommy,
thank you for the review and for the proposed changes.
I reviewed them and they look good to me.
I still disagree with one requested change, see below.
From: IPsec On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:33 PM
To: Tero Kivinen ; ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [
"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" writes:
Chris,
Thanks for repeating in this thread your earlier reply.
While I understand that the author is not happy with an additional 2 weeks of
delay on the top of 3 years, additional reviews[1] by the IETF community can
only be beneficial to the document. As wri
Robert Moskowitz writes:
> So I think the correct example should be:
>
> foo.example.com IN IPSECKEY
> (10 0 4 . 3WTXgUvpn1RlCXnm80gGY2LZ/ErUUEZtZ33IDi8yfhM= )
>
> I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples: with and
> without gateway?
More examples is
> On Aug 11, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> Hi Tommy,
>
> thank you for the review and for the proposed changes.
> I reviewed them and they look good to me.
> I still disagree with one requested change, see below.
>
> From: IPsec mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org>> On
> Behalf Of
On 8/11/22 07:35, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Robert Moskowitz writes:
So I think the correct example should be:
foo.example.com IN IPSECKEY
(10 0 4 . 3WTXgUvpn1RlCXnm80gGY2LZ/ErUUEZtZ33IDi8yfhM= )
I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples: with and
