Subject: [manet] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-01

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:28:21 -0500

The WG chairs announce a WG Last Call for the nhdp-sec-threats document.  Its intended status is INFORMATIONAL.

The WG Last Call will last two weeks from today until Friday, Mar 8.

-Joe Macker

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:32:07 +0100

Hi Joe,

There was WG discussion [1][2] not followed by authors to update the
WG draft, and the draft was expired last year, I recommend authors to
follow and update it before the WGLC

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13361.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13378.html

AB

On 2/22/13, Joe Macker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:46:12 -0800

AB,

I let Jiazi confirm (who did the updates of the text), but as far as I can
see the text has been updated as promised. Also you are wrong, the draft
[1] has not expired. It will expire in April 2013.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-01

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: Jiazi Yi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:47:36 +0100

Dear AB, 

I would suggest read the latest revision before making comments. 
Those changes have been integrated. 

best

Jiazi

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 17:05:14 +0100

Ok sorry, I made a mistake in checking
herberg-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-01, but when checking the discussions I
think the comments below are valid and few still not fulfill, I will
comment on the replies when available,

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13286.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13361.html

AB

---

From: Jiazi Yi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:49:35 +0100

Dear AB, 

I have replied the mail from John and Teco. Those comments were either addressed, or provided with considerations of the authors. 

If you have different opinion, please elaborate. 

best

Jiazi