Message-ID: <53B1C46B.10307@tomh.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:11:23 -0700
From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
References: <201406301155.s5UBtAEc021262@givry.fdupont.fr>
In-Reply-To: <201406301155.s5UBtAEc021262@givry.fdupont.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/3zqhro3xLHv3FmkI-4-QaYq8l34
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] processing review comments on RFC 5201-bis
Precedence: list

On 06/30/2014 04:55 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
>   In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>>   Hi all, we received a number of comments during the IESG evaluation of
>>   RFC 5201-bis.  Below are the non-editorial comments.  There were also
>>   several IANA questions that I plan to handle in a separate message.
>
> => as a co-author of RFC 4843bis I found a mismatch between 4843bis,
> section 3.2 and appendix E... (PS: my proposal is to follow 3.2,
> add "truncated " in the 4843bis example, and cleanup the table 11
> of appendix E).
>

Francis,

I had a look at appendix E but couldn't determine what you are 
suggesting be changed; could you propose some specific text?

While we are on this topic, Tom Taylor had suggested as an editorial 
comment:

"Appendix E, opening sentence:  ORCHID prefix is now 23 bits, not 28 bits."

but I believe that this is not correct (ORCHID prefix will eventually be 
28 bits long out of the 2001::/23 space, if I am not mistaken).

- Tom