Subject: Re: [yam] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with COMMENT)

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:48:13 -0700

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the review.

At 04:04 19-08-2011, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Given that start-tls is (as stated) the most common
>way to secure the submission channel, perhaps the
>mention of IPsec in 3.3 would be better replaced
>with a reference to start-tls?

I posted a message to the YAM WG about this.  There wasn't any 
response.  I am going to default to a "no change" as this was not 
raised as an issue during the WGLC or the Last Call.

Please do not read it as meaning that your comment does not have 
merit.  As the intended status of the draft is Full Standard and the 
text was already in RFC 4409, the barrier for making a change is higher.

>typo in IANA cnosiderations? "The table in Table 1..."
>s/table/text/?

I am waiting for feedback from the editors about fixes to the IANA 
Considerations section.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:59:07 +0100

Hi SM,

It was a comment and I figured that might be it, so that's
ok. If it ends up back for more work for some other reason
maybe consider asking again since it reads oddly, but isn't
really harmful so not worth holding the thing up for if
that's all that needs changing,

Cheers,
S.

On 08/23/2011 05:48 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I posted a message to the YAM WG about this. There wasn't any response.
> I am going to default to a "no change" as this was not raised as an
> issue during the WGLC or the Last Call.
>
> Please do not read it as meaning that your comment does not have merit.
> As the intended status of the draft is Full Standard and the text was
> already in RFC 4409, the barrier for making a change is higher.
>