Re: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis

Samu Varjonen <samu.varjonen@helsinki.fi> Fri, 03 July 2015 05:02 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 B0B051B2BD8 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 22:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.81
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 MX452pBzrQu4 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 22:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B796E1B2BD9 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 22:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail-4.mappi.helsinki.fi (webmail-4.mappi.helsinki.fi [128.214.20.218]) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t63527kb003799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Jul 2015 08:02:07 +0300
Received: from 62-78-245-228.bb.dnainternet.fi (62-78-245-228.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.78.245.228]) by webmail.helsinki.fi (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:02:07 +0300
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:02:07 +0300
Message-ID: <20150703080207.Horde.wl-syF7jr-K1aalkYow-Xw1@webmail.helsinki.fi>
From: Samu Varjonen <samu.varjonen@helsinki.fi>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
References: <5583BF80.8060304@ericsson.com> <55891588.80604@helsinki.fi> <559240CB.9050005@ericsson.com> <5593855C.4070002@helsinki.fi> <55938B37.4050905@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <55938B37.4050905@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.6)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_c9ZqmcLMV21MKKa5MfaYxA2"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/VKONmRxmUwGAWMhBHkPgA1zTmNI>
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
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: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 05:02:18 -0000

  Hi Gonzalo,

In my opinion yes

BR,
Samu

Lainaus Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>;:

> Hi Samu,
>
> to be clear, you are saying that the draft is ready for Working Group
> Last Call, is that right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 01/07/2015 9:14 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
>> 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
>>>>  
>
>