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

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>
>
>