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

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 14:58 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 2C71812D513; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:58:37 -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 isUOfkQSpCgc; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (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 2525B12B025; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id j185so366375380oih.0; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:58:35 -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=DbW3BoDpDnp5ulGiKTi2yZCELIo6E/Kspq1DWgsh4/8=; b=rDBLCOdpUnPYW1jtRg1+Quhy7funtl42TihnKthRU5BU89Xmr9Mw00CrjeQ1eQdCyS j5rVLFnD3WS+BuP53ST5lxPaBLKjhVB52UxLB0QFJ9aJS+S3QCUph5RJVESCLNA2B6Fx J2+0TK4Yn4nnUb/o/2VAgmqtw/R26pgAg6RXrD8doOnjokXVhFxmk6qhuSvrFZEHvg4k +XTFyy+Dv5OtY2Dso1djG9SPiWHzdHsH+k3X58osaBzcWOg2+9ct+I3zDkFilHx/Moyk x16gCTsSwISN1Gxn6ZZVF/2D0T8gtl3+2oFJ9dcMirHfCSbi0ecWDvUOs3V16L5/R1kZ b2MA==
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=DbW3BoDpDnp5ulGiKTi2yZCELIo6E/Kspq1DWgsh4/8=; b=MY9zmaqNFaZ0G0yqM/BQnO1iEH+yuE4XzBMc0aaDZsMu61ecGRPf5+WFP4q4cJy5fR 7CEhS8ftmVERLaVK9rYN8z6n39HtWc2S5SjHdR6BPETmP7LjO4vhQ4tD1XizifHc7JXi HTMPE5yRCPY9nporr7Uddp0RsBnFvlajFR9sfEbtxiM3xpDbd3Et3XHJpU04q+8Spobe nA9QJYxsPt4krdkplxLjbYSTEq/DIYkc+i6NBF9FABDqW6gr1KLRjaLlhLTM6KaTmvpR oBrYpro3gGabas/qr6lzF7Am1cv53IZ1te/G8skAbGbIkUfdElp5jE+lnCLkRHWjxNat JGjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousr/OZ+S+yx1tMHw7IE9ITSgFYJ7W2ObSd/xgPWD1AmmI297Xn/oClZg22KMFOuz9kxpgLtjdI8ZlE7zw==
X-Received: by 10.157.8.4 with SMTP id 4mr22712230oty.17.1470409114461; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.63.52 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1470408986.3305145.687024713.3CB59058@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <20160706142213.7773.71894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAE_dhjtVzvwBci+LWzwO6BZNH9v-beTxcRkzNewZSYevKQ-xdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE_dhjuB3gi2Vamxgs56GGTnJKwW8iMy9f+U8PcFKEtmLuLhKA@mail.gmail.com> <1470408986.3305145.687024713.3CB59058@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:58:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhju=DhOHoVRsK1PKJpiv6nUa+x3Y1XfvzWnVVha3F-OjNQ@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/C0g_iK0AVzM1iNPngLcp3cKcGBI>
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, 05 Aug 2016 14:58:37 -0000

Hi Alexey,

Thank you!

--julien

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> 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 <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
>> 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 <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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>