IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] processing review comments on RFC 5201-bis

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Mon, 30 June 2014 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 379681A023E for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 bzNetBp_1wPy for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B33901A020A for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s5UBtAEc021262; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:55:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201406301155.s5UBtAEc021262@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:53:14 PDT. <53AF010A.70606@tomh.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:55:10 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/QdlbqBWI8DItKOLyeAXKvkQy-wk
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] processing review comments on RFC 5201-bis
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, 30 Jun 2014 11:55:15 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  Hi all, we received a number of comments during the IESG evaluation of
>  RFC 5201-bis.  Below are the non-editorial comments.  There were also
>  several IANA questions that I plan to handle in a separate message.

=> as a co-author of RFC 4843bis I found a mismatch between 4843bis,
section 3.2 and appendix E... (PS: my proposal is to follow 3.2,
add "truncated " in the 4843bis example, and cleanup the table 11
of appendix E).

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email