Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.txt

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 31 January 2016 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3402E1ACE65; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vDxLmyZTLvF6; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9601A1A1B18; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id ba1so101180022obb.3; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JD60xHHB84zOdHd7EMkgF6hIym+jj11RInDvoIbhO8k=; b=PcfH4HpTDebJIVvWmmj+jSmIhDjmMQUZvGMDJey0YJSuh3UaycP5aFemlEFLMNwjgR ic2LyfM4HjhxZx8LfUJ3SpUftn7ByGcjlzVT6aOfxmHsSbGPPlvQbUZ+S7icck53I+Nd fLh1CXPEdyDex2ADGH1JlpTi5g8foRk/SPlkEUkrg7rkc12jMyZwDgg9psyscEc0cOHE oYT/qLSRy90VxBpcGYFqHSKl3J2HgvEsP9lM1uuIijErYaIyFEwkJmUX8mnM5BIaWNlq oeK4cjJwT25hBIP93ZUJFvvlh+hGxVIqXQ9fHXEHzntSooHiYbi+QcDzSN3DrdvcH4BH B8ug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JD60xHHB84zOdHd7EMkgF6hIym+jj11RInDvoIbhO8k=; b=aNAXi+y8bTjxdn4UKOJEQ7TXU94L7F+CNBN2hBB1HggwTkGPeYkVxhx8hDwa16AOLv yjz6VXU6pUyVZvvobm+2lR5Q2f39nbUJ4jdfxSPIV/YD+am+778aKz7+G7Hbu7LNwRQw BXigI7UCuajA9jK06LuKkQbg6WEKnvlR0gIWe6kszd38fwqbeKT7VUlbNwqkwqtlpTj6 IXUBZ0sfnjat1HUsxUDPuKFiLMeFKzAkgZum+2l8Z+NG5uuofsH0MlyNVMtMyzrYkduT 4wF/G6NxiLcu/5F6lTEWdBMqx+eRqwnfrkLpS2HDUwkEhUxJstwApbBk8dm5DVKxsCJx dUsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQY4Bsji7UeLQVGntr1/2E9yJ/03KymckxhGWBOWChxQxFelA2Tqr+PNAf14b4n4XTvsML1uRZbTGBD0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.20.98 with SMTP id m2mr14369545obe.61.1454260205785; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.157.26.28 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201512241540.tBOFeInL018314@givry.fdupont.fr>
References: <201512241540.tBOFeInL018314@givry.fdupont.fr>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjtNUr859_tKe=zcnDbL7PnjBaUpXfi5vwFC=Pcu80pMEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7JvQq4LpJLj1Jf1L6gpFkV0nQKY>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:10:11 -0000

Thanks for the review, Francis, and my apologies for the belated
reply. Please see my answers to your comments inlined below:

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Francis Dupont
<Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> wrote:
>  [...]
> Summary: Ready
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  - 2 page 3: (comment!) I looked at if the re-registration is a refresh or
>   a renew (I worked too long on DHCP these times :-): it is soft state
>   so I agree the term refresh is the right one.

Ok. No change made.

>  - 3.3 page 4: the short description of what is "valid and accepted"
>   for a certificate is very loose. I don't know if it will be enough
>   for the security directorate... wait and see?

Yes, let's see if the sec-dir wants changes made in that respect. No
change made.

>  - 4.[2-5] pages 6 to 9: the section titles should be at the beginning of
>   the page, not at the end. Note the formatting will be fixed by the
>   RFC Editor anyway.

Yes, the RFC Editor will fix the formatting later. No change made.

>  - 4.[2-5] pages 7 to 10: there is no details about the padding, e.g.,
>   the padding is for a length which is a multiple of 8 bytes. IMHO
>   you should add a reference to RFC 7401 section 5.2 "HIP Parameters"
>   in section 4 so someone who wants a response to this question
>   (or why types are even) knows where to go.

Good suggestion. I've added a sentence to that effect to the
introductory paragraph:

4.  Parameter Formats and Processing

   This section describes the format and processing of the new
   parameters introduced by the HIP registration extension.  The
   encoding of these new parameters is conforms to the HIPv2 TLV format
   described in section 5.2.1 of RFC7401 [RFC7401].

Regards, and happy new year.

--julien