Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: (with DISCUSS)

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 14:23 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 3EB4C12D736; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:23:19 -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 Ycm7PCst3LZR; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x241.google.com (mail-oi0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::241]) (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 A1E8812D098; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x241.google.com with SMTP id s17so10410368oih.1; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 07:23:13 -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=hR6pvkebm67nWrUFkBvl6b+arkE0kGcmtDMH4aqrlfc=; b=o2Pqs3F8+maN0rS47e9BygISGYWeaNoBgS8soqk/0CRfinmy04REp54CquQ4jfqnCx C4lrF217hMmjmNQ12/BxH749Gkhk0GdDSXC3v7dP/g5ReYmzfp2VQWeMFYIf+Ft+9B9t r7N0VUJ8N38brou7cGVpKo0KyV0HhJlYd2gfnoRG8/RCuF07b8K4OOaW02h6IaMANj7d 7nHIG8oo7dJSHOACgF2L9UgD2dUjo4V1CiaRkCLUbMoxF4cxtv3R0PqvZXh47xHL8Z0f OLXe/vf3Je9aU8VepnISjOfGg46AZWXumLiTRbLBxJ9W3ObSPf97d5vmf9hB2eeHtElj yLKg==
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=hR6pvkebm67nWrUFkBvl6b+arkE0kGcmtDMH4aqrlfc=; b=XJU5aSTM1jjTzhgAdxYg3fWLMcjKRda2b0wM050lre7+fafko7RhhMu3XkIF4kavd7 k5C+x7NbUZw2C17YkpBIVol8s9NzvsdkVRECoUw1kuCBOfU4WvUZEn4AzmezasZNnVXU wuwzSKSSad9HQ4ODMV02X32aLPta3RC7HnbCwSWAhUjrEL9VTCWMP08FRfB9OTQMjrWt 0WMLVdN/OF8oxtrOO/qyneAEMBL8OdVDC5N48OgyMwwOilYaNJtdwvVRfzIYDnkXIjBI DMneQgmMVnDJ4OaxEMZZzYCkpTEP3BR0b98nVlHFKtlZaETYc4soZ3bW/pNWV6TuO0l2 55/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKPhCTl28v9wElRE4bMdE2K9HOmhd/9ejx6btYnKMeHPHDewnQaqq7poHTyNyMhvxqxm6SB+wOwosyGnw==
X-Received: by 10.202.96.137 with SMTP id u131mr3088253oib.71.1467987792866; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 07:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.47.164 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160706142213.7773.71894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160706142213.7773.71894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:23:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjtVzvwBci+LWzwO6BZNH9v-beTxcRkzNewZSYevKQ-xdQ@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/Bsh-RsrmUEZZpdhdVbpTutiddB0>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis@ietf.org, hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: (with DISCUSS)
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, 08 Jul 2016 14:23:19 -0000

Hi Alexey,

The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5205 but someone
asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision.
I will also clarify that the base64 encoding from section 4 is to be
used, similar to DNSSEC RRs.

Thanks.

--julien

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: 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-rfc5205-bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is the same as Ben's DISCUSS point, but I think this is important
> enough to fix:
>
>  Please replicate the appropriate info from the RFC 5205 IANA
> considerations. The similar section in this draft does not seem to stand
> alone. Readers should not need to refer back to the obsoleted RFC to
> understand this version.
>
> RFC 4648 actually has 2 base64 encodings, so you should say which section
> number you mean (section 4 or section 5). I suspect you meant section 5.
>
>
>
>