Hi Martin,
I see, makes sense.
Thanks for still tweaking the sentence! This resolves the issue.
Best,
Reese
On 1/25/23 09:00, Martin Duke wrote:
Hi Reese,
Thanks for the review.
However, I think the text is correct as is. The first part is saying
the measures might not deter anyone, while the second part says they
might be deterred (finding it not feasible).
Nevertheless, this PR makes the sentence read a little better:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-elegy/rfc8989bis/pull/17
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:03 PM Reese Enghardt via Datatracker
<noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-03
Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
Review Date: 2023-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2023-01-23
IESG Telechat date: 2023-02-02
Summary: This document is clear and concise. It is almost ready for
publication, just one minor issue.
Major issues: None.
Minor issues:
In Section 5.1:
"Some organizations might not
be deterred in either case, while others might now find such an
attack to not be feasible."
As the cost of the attack decreases, should the "not" be removed
in the second
part here, so it'll read "others might now find such an attach to
be feasible"?
Nits/editorial comments: None.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
