Subject: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 21:13:15 +0200

This is the start of 2 week WGLC on the draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis
document, ending 2021-11-26.

Please submit your comments to the list, also send a note if you have
reviewed the document, so we can see how many people are interested in
getting this out.
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 09:00:03 -0500

I have reviewed the diff at:
  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8229&url2=draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-01

and the update seems like a good job to me.

I wonder about keeping more of the original authors on the new document,
since it is substantively the same document.  I can not judge what their
contribution was to the original document, nor do I know if they were asked.
If the design team has gone through this consideration, then that's enough
for me.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: "Valery Smyslov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 17:15:54 +0300

Hi Michael,

> and the update seems like a good job to me.

Thanks.

> If the design team has gone through this consideration, then that's enough

All three original authors were asked to co-author the draft.
Tommy agreed, but no reply was received from Samy and Ravi.
I cannot judge their contribution to the original rfc,
but I think that it's a good idea to add them to acknowledgement 
section anyway. Will do this.

Regards,
Valery.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 15:13:24 -0500

Valery Smyslov <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> I wonder about keeping more of the original authors on the new
    >> document, since it is substantively the same document.  I can not
    >> judge what their contribution was to the original document, nor do I
    >> know if they were asked.  If the design team has gone through this
    >> consideration, then that's enough for me.

    > All three original authors were asked to co-author the draft.  Tommy
    > agreed, but no reply was received from Samy and Ravi.  I cannot judge
    > their contribution to the original rfc, but I think that it's a good
    > idea to add them to acknowledgement section anyway. Will do this.

Glad to hear you had that discussion. My issue is closed :-)

Please consider using the xml-v3 contributor mechanism.
If you are using Kramdown, then it's just like the author: section, but you
say "contributor:"

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: "Valery Smyslov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:07:46 +0300

Hi Michael,

> If you are using Kramdown, then it's just like the author: section, but you

We don't use neither xml-v3 (yet) nor Kramdown. The text Tommy and I have added
to the document is placed in Acknowledgements Section:

https://github.com/smyslov/rfc8229bis/pull/6/files

Let us know if the text is insufficient from your opinion.

Thank you,
Valery.