Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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.
****
Nits/editorial comments:****
Section 3 the end of 2nd paragraph “mechansisms” to “mechanisms”****
Fixed.
Thanks again,
-MSK