Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis

Hi,

to my knowledge rfc6253-bis does not need changes to work with rfc7401. Review 
and comments would still be welcome.

-Samu

On 30/06/15 10:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi Samu,
>
> thanks for having revised RFC6253bis:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/
>
> Could you please let us know the current status of the draft now that it
> has been revised? That is, what needs to happen next and what is needed
> overall before the draft is ready for WGLC.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 23/06/2015 11:15 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> yes, we will update the document as soon as possible.
>>
>> BR,
>> Samu Varjonen
>>
>> On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>> Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis,
>>>
>>> the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01
>>>
>>> RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that
>>> it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a
>>> normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the
>>> publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis,
>>> and RFC5205bis).
>>>
>>> Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on
>>> your plans to revise this document?
>>>
>>> Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated
>>> reference?
>>>
>>>     draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>
>>