Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis

Samu Varjonen <samu.varjonen@helsinki.fi> Tue, 23 June 2015 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <samu.varjonen@helsinki.fi>
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 E36BD1A908A for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 dTYxkZl4tvGz for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.ipv6.otaverkko.fi [IPv6:2a02:4880:10:1000::2:25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08D141A9085 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.214.166.182] (whx-12.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.166.182]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABC1423891 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:04 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:04 +0300
From: Samu Varjonen <samu.varjonen@helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hipsec@ietf.org
References: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/Izn8XTPJYogyBLTw1YiAgL8Jks0>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis
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: <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: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:15:15 -0000

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