IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 23 June 2014 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37FD11B2BFC for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 7pMEml__Tuqx for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22b.google.com (mail-ve0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 392A01B2B1F for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id jz11so6467432veb.30 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ac3Z0VicUbcHPdQCOaGwuvcrYNKPc6xIMj17ZHLemz0=; b=oK/HwCO2aCIIoQUp+Lq/GUd+O8vHAQbBtaB1WWawNsqh46fxiSOJkVuufS9cJDGmE9 E9lK9JvuYBqLcbnCC+lsVBLmoVUrTIm2BGTwTTBI/8ONSRe5Q/phPgHZ2R8laOq7OJch qqubzQcOlrq9RNdKA9/wiaygNkW0D5oFRoqkN4XxrRS9K01JM5xJV+WpH1UjMuGkkxa/ pnOspIJ2gwjlHu4AOTZ5DvZb6sZQZJZbIHle0Krt9DBtJRdn9m+j5D60phJ4uyr2u9GH SblqyZLWHTy4bx6GV0ICaFHrJxeCpIeUNSX3uZmBZ4Ayu1JjZ4WfktD0g0MCATwogYJQ vUGw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr1481846vec.57.1403540337301; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.117.9 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0B09A467-1447-4D61-804D-9DD581A89275@nominum.com>
References: <20140528160426.31345.98483.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140607073853.0b975758@resistor.net> <CAE_dhju4kfj=YXjJN-rMXDNd-zLy4zLawf_2jcBh26CiFSJ99A@mail.gmail.com> <0B09A467-1447-4D61-804D-9DD581A89275@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjvWGK8y-Yu2Wr5kaxYTUeijj1209c95VTFS2kgELxMAAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/Ghxdu7cTRFpi8cBR6SH2-LHYkJI
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Francis Dupont <fdupont@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:30:25 -0000

Ted, the specific comment here is w.r.t. a statement in the IANA
considerations that reads "The prefix that was temporarily allocated
for the experimental ORCHID is to be returned to IANA in 2014
[RFC4843]."

Do we really need an update of the draft for the sake of "s/is to be/was/"?

--julien

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This provides useful information on the need for an allocation for
>> the time being, and I believe can be edited as you suggest as an
>> editorial change during AUTH48 once the draft has been approved by
>> IESG.
>
> SM, are you satisfied with Julien's response?
>
> Julien, I'd prefer that you update the draft--it would be highly unusual to address IETF last call comments during AUTH48.
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status