IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 23 June 2014 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8B01B2982 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 G2x0NWXxxZur for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF35E1A037D for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BE61B81C7 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC0F190071; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (174.62.147.182) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:12:48 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjvWGK8y-Yu2Wr5kaxYTUeijj1209c95VTFS2kgELxMAAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 13:12:45 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0084C183-CC5A-45D4-8680-7BE65F2E0E3F@nominum.com>
References: <20140528160426.31345.98483.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140607073853.0b975758@resistor.net> <CAE_dhju4kfj=YXjJN-rMXDNd-zLy4zLawf_2jcBh26CiFSJ99A@mail.gmail.com> <0B09A467-1447-4D61-804D-9DD581A89275@nominum.com> <CAE_dhjvWGK8y-Yu2Wr5kaxYTUeijj1209c95VTFS2kgELxMAAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Originating-IP: [174.62.147.182]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/1rozSkMSnQhydBVjVyGU04Tm0jY
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Francis Dupont <fdupont@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:13:02 -0000

On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we really need an update of the draft for the sake of "s/is to be/was/"?

Well, see Barry's DISCUSS... :)

The other way to address comments like this is in an RFC Editor note, but if you update the draft, then you don't have to worry about the information accidentally being lost.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status