Re: draft-ietf-isis-hmac-04

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Russ,

  Just checked with the Rfc-Ed. They will be able to deal with it as
  long as the authors send them the ver without the right adjust.

  Given the editorial nature of the comments, I suggest we keep the
  ball rolling and bring the doc to the telechat without an rfc-ed
  note, and I will ask the authors after the telechat to submit a
  revision incorporating all required changes, including #3.
  

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Wednesday, May 28, 2003, 1:01:50 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Alex:

> I do not think that an RFC Ed note will handle number 3.  The RFC Ed does 
> not want to receive documents in this form.  So, if they need to make a 
> change (probably one nroff command), then they should probably deal with 
> numbers 1 and 2 at the same time.

> Russ

> At 12:03 PM 5/28/2003 -0700, Alex Zinin wrote:
>>Thanks, Russ. I'll add an rfc-ed note to it.
>>
>>--
>>Alex
>>http://www.psg.com/~zinin/
>>
>>Tuesday, May 27, 2003, 7:18:06 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> > Three editorial comments:
>>
>> >    1) In section 1, change "insure" to "ensure."
>>
>> >    2) In section 3, change "... lack of operator interest in deploying the
>> > proposed revised mechanism" to " ... lack of operator interest in 
>> deploying
>> > a revised mechanism."
>>
>> >    3) The document should not be right justified.