This is probably my fault. I didn't think it was wise to submit a
new version of the I-D until all of the comments & corrections had
been collected. I didn't want folks trying to review a moving target,
especially since a change in paragraph A might affect the interpretation
of paragraph B.
----------------+--------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. Igoe | "We can't solve problems by using the same kind
kmigoe(_at_)nsa(_dot_)gov | of thinking we used when we created them."
| - Albert Einstein -
----------------+--------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:20 AM
To: Ben Campbell; Igoe, Kevin M.
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Team (gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org);
draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF
Discussion
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm-14
I am looking at this draft in order to fill in my recommendations for tonight's
IESG telechat.
Ben, thank you for your review which pointed out worries (and I agreed with
those), and thank you Kevin for the responses (which made sense to me).
However, in addition to the major/minor issue discussion, there were several
suggested edits. Is there a plan to add them to a new version? I don't see a
new draft version available yet... didn't see anything that is critical, but I
also didn't want to us to lose discussed improvements.
Jari