IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Wed, 01 July 2015 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 ADD781AD0BA for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0pGdFKE9orjP for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31AE01AD0BC for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79356d000006281-37-55938b37b58c
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EC.23.25217.73B83955; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 08:39:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [131.160.36.61] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 08:39:51 +0200
Message-ID: <55938B37.4050905@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:39:51 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Samu Varjonen <samu.varjonen@helsinki.fi>, hipsec@ietf.org
References: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi> <559240CB.9050005@ericsson.com> <5593855C.4070002@helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <5593855C.4070002@helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja5F9+RQg1kLuC2mLprMbHHj5wx2 ByaP/pX72T2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJWx7vtTxoIpghWr1hc1MDbxdTFyckgImEjM fL6OEcIWk7hwbz0biC0kcJRR4tNG5i5GLiB7FaNE5/lHYAleAW2Jhbt3M4PYLAIqEleXTAaz 2QQsJLbcus8CYosKRElM/HqIBaJeUOLkzCdgtoiAg8S6/03sXYwcHMIC1hKzv2RCzG9nlHjx dxM7SA0n0PzPk64xgdjMAgYSRxbNYYWw5SW2v53DDHGctsTyZy0sExgFZiFZMQtJyywkLQsY mVcxihanFhfnphsZ6aUWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBAblwS2/rXYwHnzueIhRgINRiYd3gefkUCHW xLLiytxDjNIcLErivDM254UKCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYEyKOCqp65KWtHP2 8efxFgplZ85NN7VTvGTWlPpfNX1ik9WH9IConJ1Geldk/xge0K9++loyYm6t4Ze3C5449OYf mSfePnWWXnjofD4bVv1gr1NHT0o2Pj2xfqr0ei6LgBPNz2YanXirayIgdvXLNs3zPjGsmS5M bZ/y/ihNnN4268R0zXoBfyWW4oxEQy3mouJEAE8bWEUrAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/3CYWVh2cDc1z7ZmUgQYQO2rJEbI>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 06:40:02 -0000

Hi Samu,

to be clear, you are saying that the draft is ready for Working Group
Last Call, is that right?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 01/07/2015 9:14 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> to my knowledge rfc6253-bis does not need changes to work with rfc7401.
> Review and comments would still be welcome.
> 
> -Samu
> 
> On 30/06/15 10:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi Samu,
>>
>> thanks for having revised RFC6253bis:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/
>>
>> Could you please let us know the current status of the draft now that it
>> has been revised? That is, what needs to happen next and what is needed
>> overall before the draft is ready for WGLC.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 23/06/2015 11:15 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> yes, we will update the document as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Samu Varjonen
>>>
>>> On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>>> Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis,
>>>>
>>>> the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis:
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01
>>>>
>>>> RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that
>>>> it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a
>>>> normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the
>>>> publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis,
>>>> and RFC5205bis).
>>>>
>>>> Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on
>>>> your plans to revise this document?
>>>>
>>>> Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated
>>>> reference?
>>>>
>>>>     draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>
>>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email