Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 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: 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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