Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 00:46 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 93A1E12D68D; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:10 -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 qEv0ftV-AnfW; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 CD68812B011; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id f189so70019383oig.3; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:46:08 -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=OEAK0zE5QiewnZFvBASyqThe/0PkssFEhJvkUoTvaT8=; b=PvM0KtGfx28461wxWSYrFeQEvbOlQQ+xOPn4/Jey58I6/PIAxhGHViOeRHYrvsPzgT SYG5p7PU9GjCUe0R20Hoc8gAwMDZJPIVOC1WhT/19NZhe4YQ7Nm0K862FhVi/oymHrxb 7r9PhvFlk8zfDBbi07S3B9nVoe2ffGm0HXWucLfOwfUsBTU1BGY3aiOfS03wklOD+hjB 6sSMbZMXyN5fMeaIxaZbDC1axiYQKsZOX7yd65Mynyg+AE9Cr2DL9XN7cT8ZbEHXV+jF xhr4yH2u9rm5BXOGP7zua9EiuL+OX9/IgfAb9y6lXMGc4SH5v0mFMQkZOfDUVaoUnnsc hvzQ==
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=OEAK0zE5QiewnZFvBASyqThe/0PkssFEhJvkUoTvaT8=; b=YeT7G2Gg2IXQX0oDeKUbYu+iN6WVTIE5+qJurMetWrjLL82EkzXjnYDdKPw/mFRRTX a4yw0DP8P6MF1HwqfnZClPdKnghIuncNQRBGfrBQHPg2g3BWhqsq7eJHXq1S0zBUji3Z QCYqJbzcIMfAGEYafAyhBQV0WfRQkx7cb1yP8azfsAzz3paHjV9D1X57Jm0+dyCMlXaQ uSMl0trgc1rKeWdYUHHvrdAKwvl1oGSqbHySCW4M8CZu+X5NOmBZsjDmvs9koxoNAsMM dzj/q85ZJ7RqhpjoSwNCnaQJaCHirUbGSuXs4N4vGky4/wY1lvdW0etoVHxVDhFTFv5+ lhkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousWzIBRq0UbOXwf8EGSFiDAL79q3QDjEJjT4cDnFSWqRoG4MSD8LurGZYTt+dAJ4VFigPcp2YL2ItP5tA==
X-Received: by 10.202.83.16 with SMTP id h16mr1918574oib.189.1470357968255; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.63.52 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160702103153.14866.7276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160702103153.14866.7276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:46:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjs7G-J9_gKOcpZH1Z2qbgy3WqmvcNiKJu1ZoBbVgpCUJA@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/Nx8QzV4V3vGgA6-4XZ1V5ANjlS8>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis@ietf.org, HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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 00:46:10 -0000

Hi Alexey,

FYI I've addresses your concern with the IANA considerations as
discussed in the last draft revision.

Best,

--julien

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: 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-rfc5203-bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a
> document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document
> creates new subregistries. This makes the status of earlier established
> registries unclear. Also, other sections have references to Section 7
> (e.g. for registration types) which no longer contain relevant
> information.
> I think you should copy the original IANA registration section in its
> entirety and clearly mark new allocations in it.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I found the "changed since" Appendix, so never mind that ;-)
>
> It would be good if the document said that a registration type is 1 octet
> without the need to look at the packet diagrams or IANA registration text
> from RFC 5203 that you deleted.
>
>