Bert:
> > > > Yes No-Objection Discuss * Abstain
> > > >Russ Housley [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ]
> > >
> > > Since this document will obsolete RFC 2576, it would be very helpful if
> > > the document contained a summary of the changes which are implemented by
> > > this document. I assume that Appendix B is not intended to be included in
> > > the final RFC. I think that the change summary should be at a much higher
> > > level than Appendix B.
> > >
> >Mmmm... when we still had Scott on the IESG, he always wanted it in
> >the appendix material as far as I remember. Anyway, it weas in appendix
> >B when we had rfc2576, which obsoleted 1908, so we are/were just following
> >what was already in an earlier RFC. I do know that in quite a few RFCs,
> >such a list of updates occurs in an appendix.
>
> I do not really care about placement. I did not think that Appendix B was
> really to be included in the final RFC because it also included other history.
>
That other history is also the diffs/changes between earlier RFCs... not
diffs/changes at the I-D level. So the intention is to keep it all in the
RFC-to-be.
Okay. I withdraw this comment.
> > > In section 8, the document says: "... USM, with authentication and > > > privacy." Please change "privacy" to "confidentiality." > > > > >Well, we have Authentication and Privcacy protocols in USM. That is how > >they have been known since oh mid 90s or so. > > > >So we have a authNoPriv and a authPriv way of communicating. > >So I think that sticking to privacy is better given the history and > >the name of the fields and bits that we use. > > How about ".. USM, with authentication and privacy (also known as > confidentiality)." > That seem quite acceptable to me. Can we do so with an RFC-Editor note?
Fine. I will send a note to the secretariat to clear the DISCUSS. Russ