Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

I'm happy with the outcome. The list discussion addressed the issue. I 
believe the outcome is: "The plaintext attack is resistible, not a real 
problem, and need not be addressed in the document."

Tom Taylor

On 06/09/2014 11:37 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
> On 09/06/2014 08:25 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> It looks like the latest rev of 5201-bis does not address the gen-art
>> review comments nor Francis Dupont's comments, and I haven't seen any
>> follow-up discussion on Francis' comments.   What do the authors
>> believe the status of these two comment threads is?
>>
>
> Ted,
>
> I believe that there is only one open issue left from the Gen-Art
> review, regarding possible plaintext attacks:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/42
>
> The list discussion on this issue leans against making any change; see
> the last message of this thread:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03903.html
>
> I think I previously handled all of the other comments; if I missed any,
> please point them out.
>
> I have tried to contact Francis a couple of times regarding
> clarification of his comments and have not seen a reply.  This is
> tracked in issue:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/49
>
> I'm cc'ing both Tom Taylor and Francis for any further clarifications.
>
> - Tom
>
>