Return-Path: 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: References: <20160706183132.26740.62538.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Julien Laganier Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:55 -0700 Message-ID: To: Alexey Melnikov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: HIP , hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG , 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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 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. >> >>