Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was asked to review the 08 version but my comments from 07 were not addressed and I did not see any response. So I am resending my previous review
As for making it a standard track document, I am not sure since it looks to me as an overview and not standard. And there is no normative language in the document.
Roni Even
It was changed to Proposed Standard because of rules around referencing it normatively from other documents that are seeking Proposed Standard status.
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
[...]
Minor issues:I was wondering why the “Further Discussion” section 9.3 is part of the security section. I think it should be a separate section.
The wording of 9.3 is meant to be security-specific, but that's buried in the word "use". I'll make it more clear.
Fixed.
Thanks again,
Thanks again,
-MSK