Subject: [sipcore] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 02:47:39 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This was probably caught by now, but the introduction says this update
exists because of lack of clarity in RFC2119, when it was meant to say in
RFC6665.

The SecDir reviewer asked a few clarifying questions that would be good
to see answered:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05789.html

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:59:37 -0500

Thanks for your review!

I have already put in an RFC Editor note about the incorrect reference. 

(I will leave it to Adam to address the secdir questions.)

Thanks!

Ben.

> draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00: No Objection

[..]