Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt

Gonzalo Camarillo <> Fri, 02 October 2015 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19691A1B59 for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YfXqqQhvpMbi for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B5251A1AFB for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79a26d00000149a-fd-560e5953a0ca
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 81.9B.05274.3595E065; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:15:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:15:47 +0200
References: <>
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <>
To: Samu Varjonen <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:15:47 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW5IJF+YwarJHBZTF01mtrjxcwa7 A5NH/8r97B5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mo4cX4iY8FplYrmjVvZGxgPynQxcnJICJhI 7FpziB3CFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwFFGiU3f5jFBOKsZJebdvMYEUiUs4Cyx8tFjNhBbSMBeYvvk eUA2BwezgKjE9llVIGE2AQuJLbfus4DYIgK6Eivu7GAFsXkFNCU6f78GG8MioCJxffFGsDGi AjESPb82sEHUCEqcnPkErJdTwEHi15y1zCA2s4CBxJFFc1ghbHmJ7W/nMEOcoC2x/FkLywRG wVlI2mchaZmFpGUBI/MqRtHi1OKk3HQjY73Uoszk4uL8PL281JJNjMBwPbjlt+oOxstvHA8x CnAwKvHwKjzlDRNiTSwrrsw9xCjNwaIkztvM9CBUSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTB6dU A2N4wvKu7splb3srtaa2O4jf62FwWD2xaU1LZV/irM7Oh6lfF3ttO6z9+kFyJ+/qtJvzN31/ HsAwWzH9/3WFrQ0K9yZca7b9mP2xzUNz75QNPwzlNONuHvqwonzq5ZM+HRFfZxit8o+fOGsr 9+dQhv232qaHztr+5HNRKOOs2zVSyU+j5l4wvLZMiaU4I9FQi7moOBEASXN1kDgCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:15:52 -0000

Hi Samu,

thanks for revising the draft. There are still a few things that need to
be fixed before I can request its publication. From the output of the
nits tool:

>   -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC6253, but
>      the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.

You need to add an Obsoletes: header to the header part at the beginning
of the draft. Additionally, you also need to add an Updates header as

  Obsoletes: 6253
  Updates: 7401

Note that the original RFC updated RFC 5201 and, thus, had an Updates

>   == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
>      first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer is usually
>      necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that
>      take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can contact all
>      authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78
>      rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. 
>      Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. 
>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
> for more information.)

You are the same authors as in the original RFC. Do you both agree to
remove the disclaimer?

>  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4843' is defined on line 349, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text

Does this reference need to be removed or used somewhere in the text?

>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 2693

RFC 6232bis is intended to be a Proposed Standard. Can we reference a
Standards Track RFC instead of this one? Otherwise, we will need to talk
with our AD so make sure it is OK to normatively reference an
Experimental RFC.

>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4843 (Obsoleted by RFC 7343)
>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5996 (Obsoleted by RFC 7296)

Could you please update the two references above?

>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6253

This downref is obviously OK... but what about making it an
Informational reference instead?

Could you please revise the draft addressing all the comments above?



On 22/09/2015 1:58 PM, wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
>         Title           : Host Identity Protocol Certificates
>         Authors         : Tobias Heer
>                           Samu Varjonen
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 11
> 	Date            : 2015-09-22
> Abstract:
>    The Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital
>    certificates.  It is used for carrying these certificates in Host
>    Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets.  This document specifies the
>    certificate parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed
>    verification.  Additionally, this document specifies the
>    representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and
>    Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates.
>    The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates
>    are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful
>    or failed verification, are specific to the scenario in which the
>    certificates are used.  Hence, the definition of these scenario-
>    specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT
>    parameter.
>    This document extends RFC7401 and obsoletes RFC6253.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list