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

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 November 2014 11:13 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 5F9841ACFC9 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:13:00 -0800 (PST)
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 ozK9QG7v3t6O for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:12:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99541AD04E for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:12:41 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79e66d000000ff1-93-546c7b2661cd
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F4.40.04081.62B7C645; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:12:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.160] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:12:38 +0100
Message-ID: <546C7B26.30708@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:12:38 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
References: <20140905182558.7340.5516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <540A04E3.2040203@tomh.org> <9BFCB5CC-FD77-49C2-9A67-39AEB45530D1@nominum.com> <540B2A2E.9040905@tomh.org> <540C3EB0.2000004@gmail.com> <5416CF8D.1070707@ericsson.com> <5417C8A2.9070800@tomh.org> <544FA19B.8030306@cs.hut.fi> <544FC7E9.50301@tomh.org> <ACF30959-BF48-424F-BF09-D0E3E5E1BDF4@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <ACF30959-BF48-424F-BF09-D0E3E5E1BDF4@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja56dU6IwZ4dPBZTF01mttjaHWvR ePcPkwOzx5IlP5k8Xh+Yz+qx55pGAHMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8bK/pOsBW94K27MusXcwNjN 3cXIySEhYCLx888hNghbTOLCvfVANheHkMARRokFn+9AOWsZJfYseMsCUsUroCmxp3UHWAeL gKrE6zOf2EFsNgELiS237oPViApESbxacYMVol5Q4uTMJ2BxEQEXiTuLDjF2MXJwMAuISmyf VQUSFgZq3b7vEiPErrdMEufOLGMESXAK2Es8+baUFaReQkBcoqcxCCTMLKAnMeVqCyOELS+x /e0cZhBbSEBbYvmzFpYJjEKzkGyehaRlFpKWBYzMqxhFi1OLk3LTjYz0Uosyk4uL8/P08lJL NjECw/rglt8GOxhfPnc8xCjAwajEw7uBPSdEiDWxrLgy9xCjNAeLkjjvwnPzgoUE0hNLUrNT UwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwxh6r3eH1LS32iPCyD1eWeX/da/Njd+GE1nk7DSazKrJ8zvZb p23NeuurjCmPlcARjltbl+gcV5I9f3nWt31hd861yB++ciZ756T3LMxf5io9nhASdtmj0qDQ Wozn+3OeGxbyrKteX3aI8BBfmLA55l/FWb43/hlmnB3bJnamBFW+sXPgEvt4W4mlOCPRUIu5 qDgRAOfxBClMAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/AQPfwM8gWL_hhVuRZ6r6iFH-atU
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status
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: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:13:00 -0000

Hi Ted,

Tom submitted revision 20 of the document a couple of days after your
email below. At this point, there are no discusses in the tracker. I
guess it is time to press the "approve" button.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 28/10/2014 8:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> wrote:
>> While I am sympathetic to Rene's argument in 1), no one else has supported this change on the list, so given the late stage of this document, I would suggest to keep the encoding as is.  The changes proposed in 2) and 3) are editorial, in my view, so I don't see a problem to accept them.
> 
> I would definitely concur with this.   This is not the time to do further engineering.
> 
>> I regenerated the diff according to Rene's suggestions, and posted it here:
>>
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre-2.diff
>>
>> So in summary, I would like to now convey to our AD that we have a diff to the version -19 draft that is editorial/clarification in nature, and ask whether and how it can be handled procedurally, such as:
>>
>> - publish a -20 and revisit some of the reviews (since version -19 was officially reviewed and approved, I don't know what it means to now post a -20 version)
>> - avoid publishing a -20 and handle these changes similar to AUTH48 changes
>> - scrap the diff and just publish version -19
>>
>> Our AD can let us know how he prefers to handle it.
> 
> I would prefer that you publish the -20.   Assuming that that is the working group's final say, we can then push the publish button.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 
>