IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [C310] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9031 <draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-15.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Wed, 12 May 2021 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: c310@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: c310@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB1BF407BF; Wed, 12 May 2021 09:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=2, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJECT_IN_WHITELIST=-100, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n5WmyFG0h4Cl; Wed, 12 May 2021 09:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98787F407BD; Wed, 12 May 2021 09:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ACD39061; Wed, 12 May 2021 12:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id sznyJe9t_-dT; Wed, 12 May 2021 12:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF1039060; Wed, 12 May 2021 12:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98BF899; Wed, 12 May 2021 12:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFsacWhYQ==?= =?UTF-8?B ?IFZ1xI1pbmnEhw==?= <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, jonathan.simon@analog.com, pister@eecs.berkeley.edu, 6tisch-ads@ietf.org, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, ek.ietf@gmail.com, c310@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <8C9F88B3-DCA8-44F2-A020-CD1F6CD1CAAD@inria.fr>
References: <20210511062313.11051F407DF@rfc-editor.org> <8C9F88B3-DCA8-44F2-A020-CD1F6CD1CAAD@inria.fr>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 12:17:20 -0400
Message-ID: <17592.1620836240@localhost>
Subject: Re: [C310] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9031 <draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-15.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
X-BeenThere: c310@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <c310.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/c310>, <mailto:c310-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/c310/>
List-Post: <mailto:c310@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:c310-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c310>, <mailto:c310-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 16:17:24 -0000

I've already read the diffs, but now saw that you called out to me
specifically, so let me respond explicitely.

Mališa Vučinić wrote:
    > I believe both "j" and "/j" forms should be used in the document with
    > the following difference.

    > "j" should be used when referring to the value of the Uri-Path option.
    > "/j" should be used when referring to the absolute URI.

    > That said, I noted the following discrepancy in the document that
    > should be fixed:

    > Section 8.1.1:

    > OLD: thus the Uri-Path is only "/j"
    > NEW: thus the Uri-Path is only "j"

    > All the remaining occurrences in the text seem to be fine.
    > @Michael: please confirm the answer above.

meh.  It seems good.

    > Also, please replace the occurrences of "URL" with "URI".
    > @Michael, please confirm the updated references are fine.

okay, but I don't really know.


    >     11) <!--[rfced] Would you like to add mention of RFC 6761 here, as
    > the reference for the IANA registry
    > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names)?

    >     Current: This document allocates a well-known name under the .arpa
    > name space according to the rules given in [RFC3172].

    >     Perhaps: This document allocates a well-known name under the .arpa
    > name space according to the rules given in [RFC3172] and [RFC6761].

    > [MV]

    > Yes, thanks.

    > @Michael: Please confirm.

seems good.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email