Re: Reviews requested

A few weeks ago, I said:

At 4:34 PM -0800 3/29/04, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>So, it's getting towards our self-appointed deadline of the end of 
>March, and we haven't seen any significant reviews of any of the 
>three documents. Maybe it's post-Seoul syndrome or something, but we 
>really do want to keep to our schedule.
>
>Please review the first three documents listed at 
><http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-mobike/>.
>
>- Do the requirements in the requirements document make sense? Are 
>any unneeded? Are any additional ones needed?
>
>- Do the protocol proposals make sense? Does either protocol 
>proposal have significant benefits over the other?
>
>- It wouldn't hurt to do another review of the IKEv2 document, 
>seeing as it just went into IETF last call today.
>
>Send comments to the mailing list, hopefully with a good Subject: 
>line. Thanks!

So far, only Pasi (a document author) and Jari (a WG co-chair) have 
responded. Please, let's see more from other folks!

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium