IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB8912B011; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 M_2-4-zoAL9c; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2E8612D853; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id l203so10353490oib.1; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=psgVlimOJRXiqTDnfWZEv3KwngcUCHkt8dgAwf+bLig=; b=DtEtgI+HZ45IhW1Hotulwq4wXqCy/yLgtcLc26y75q1WFIui90nn4Ace7eMF8Bb4+o YXuIpo6pqNHHZ48uT/PWaLQhmMl2up+mhuqXS3poat6GNWotVEht3OYP/vRwc3ZDD2jr MA3Fw4blYU44cFZaaFVv6x1Upua88h2po/LbTNzYookr9sSmgtThnk3G7bfaskDF8PFH mndxrbreaOYbe00d09zWBjJAzNtRQJxNLAH2YUZN/Bs4syvH0MXaIMImfhzQl9EfsP8n 9qbWQeOTAKz5mLXgloKE7JPBW2/X3mXYHzBM+v7fCQscGsPP87RCDZl8QC3w6JVTqroO K04A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=psgVlimOJRXiqTDnfWZEv3KwngcUCHkt8dgAwf+bLig=; b=WoJmMHbfQvpVJLfrXjIRx2ahntqEyVtM9kXFIPLfp4SAe/0KXsbks2NTjriOfDj/pK ACZEHo1jewrf4TbEgU+hBsPXfeA2KlCkdhDG11rnulBoXItYAoxzg/8+Ik8uMZA+j5SJ //TcOH/IEYwr7wj6VAYzUk8+4gBnqfDeyXrG9u90jWfqDNYH1PU5UdOREPSadQAAG0KY xjno6IXoC45kEyX86x5TqFGxnsYW2AoOgp/1xViNbC3bwJM8P5oU8six1ajjryGGPaBv QG64feq1tOR1XrZs0KEycQOdSbt5OtelSvVfVxl4fCjFGXASceZWQfdfVMpfcbyuZhSi wbVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvApJdKGhss1oegOMYLrU5GAO2f/25dfZQw6xakhRETmAuy9h9JV6YbKR98DjN4jad1kFsUswoixleJUA==
X-Received: by 10.202.177.84 with SMTP id a81mr39268574oif.111.1470358016197; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.63.52 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjv76Z2wgotxEpAukHnwoUeZQiY-LO-Wphm49vPhjMN3kg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160706183132.26740.62538.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAE_dhjv76Z2wgotxEpAukHnwoUeZQiY-LO-Wphm49vPhjMN3kg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:46:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjvbcm-2VCR0NiKpyhEgofvRsWUHwAJ3w3=+EtM5uyCEHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/B58WMYBZc6Nz9RU4MgJB7b_5xUM>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:46:59 -0000

FYI I've addresses your concern with the IANA considerations as
discussed in the last draft revision.

Best,

--julien

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5204 but someone
> asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --julien
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The IANA considerations section does not seem to stand alone without
>> reading RFC 5204. As you are obsoleting RFC 5204, readers shouldn't be
>> expected to read it in order to discover original IANA instructions.
>> I think you should copy information from RFC 5204.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In Section 6:
>>
>>    This section is to be interpreted according to the Guidelines for
>>    Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs [RFC5226].
>>
>> This sentence is not needed, because RFC 5204 didn't define any
>> registries, so none of the text from RFC 5226 applies. I suggest you
>> delete this sentence.
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email