Subject: [Hipsec] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-32: (with COMMENT)

From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:44:21 -0700

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-32: 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-hip-native-nat-traversal/

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

Thanks for resolving and answering my questions.

I have only one minor comment that I noticed due to that you edit the text:

Section 2:
"Following [RFC5770] and SDP [RFC3264] ..."

RFC 3264 is not SDP, it is the "Offer/Answer model with SDP" there is a
significant difference, as SDP base spec is RFC4566.

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:29:49 +0000

Hi Magnus,

ti, 2020-07-28 kello 07:44 -0700, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker
kirjoitti:
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

how about:

SDP related naming conventions [RFC3264]

or just:

[RFC3264]

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:12:03 +0000

> > RFC 3264 is not SDP, it is the "Offer/Answer model with SDP" there is
> > a significant difference, as SDP base spec is RFC4566.
> 
> how about:
> 

Either works for me.

Magnus Westerlund