[dtn-interest] LTP comments from IESG member

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We got some comments on the LTP specs from an IESG member, almost
all are nice editorial changes, but two are worth a mention here.

The 1st, which should be fine, was a suggestion to rename the
ciphersuites in the security extensions document, i.e. from
OriginAuth to HMAC-SHA1-80 and Signature to RSA-SHA256. Since I
think I'm the only one with code for that (is that right?) and
it just changes a name that doesn't affect bits on the wire
I think that's ok & will do it unless someone speaks up here
in the next short while.

The other one was a question as to whether we should have an
IANA registry for LTP extension types. I'll send a separate
mail on that, since the same remark could be made for the BP
as well & it might warrant a bit of thought. I hope we can
do any required thinking without delaying the LTP specs by
creating a new draft that just has the request to IANA and
the initial values for the registry or registries that we
decide we want. If someone thinks that plan (addressing the
issue via a new draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-iana) is problematic
then please reply to this - we can discuss what might go into
the putative draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-iana in the other thread
that I'm about to start in a minute...

Regards,
Stephen.