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

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alexey,

Thank you!

--julien

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Julien,
> I have cleared my DISCUSS on the 3 drafts that you updated.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016, at 01:47 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>> 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 7:23 AM, Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>