Ron Frederick <ronf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Mark, > > On Feb 15, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Mark D. Baushke <mdb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ron Frederick <ronf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Feb 15, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Mark D. Baushke <mdb=40juniper.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Suggestion to the reviewer of replacement paragraphs before the table in > >>> section 4 "Summary Guidance for Key Exchange Method Names Implementations" > >>> > >>> [snip] > >>> It is suggested that the MUST NOT key exchange method code be > >>> removed from the any implementations using them. > >> > >> This should be “from any” instead of “from the any”. > > > > Hmmm... I seem to have managed to lose what I intended to write. I will > > suggest this as a replacement: > > > > It is suggested that the code which implements a "MUST NOT" key > > exchange method have that implementation code be removed. > > There’s some redundancy with “code” here twice, and “have..be” still doesn’t read right. I’d suggest: > > It is suggested that the code which implements a "MUST NOT" key > exchange method be removed from implementations that contain it. +1 I like it. Thank you! > > Thank you very much for your review of the text I wrote. > > > No problem! > -- > Ron Frederick > ronf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Be safe, stay healthy, -- Mark -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
