Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Thu, 25 September 2014 12:49 UTC
Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
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 6B6461A007C for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 mJSUYB54hFb7 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63F621A0072 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f793d6d000005356-bc-54240f71d19c
Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 06.E1.21334.17F04245; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:49:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [131.160.126.125] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:49:53 +0200
Message-ID: <54240F70.6030002@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:49:52 +0100
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Rene Hummen <Rene.Hummen@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
References: <5420863E.1060608@tomh.org> <20140922212826.5048E216C3B@bikeshed.isc.org> <54210668.4050605@tomh.org> <CAE_dhju-kOzE1PzTj_+wLfYS4_8kJhWqrxJ16sMC3W6b+sanxQ@mail.gmail.com> <5421B06F.5010301@tomh.org> <CAE_dhjs3TSrME8UPFAw6y_wTye5YvLNAuQ8_KQ4m0sSokULDDg@mail.gmail.com> <5421D003.5020701@tomh.org> <CAE_dhjsMi+1vKM0U0_veB8+FBLLgKqsxo=Vr_Q-1_4KU4AeWmw@mail.gmail.com> <017BB5BE-1AC6-483B-9F2B-60B0CBFE4E6A@comsys.rwth-aachen.de> <7540C776-4133-4EFB-9CDF-5ADFA75E243A@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7540C776-4133-4EFB-9CDF-5ADFA75E243A@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW4hv0qIweI5qha3r2xgsZi6aDKz xZej05gtVnywsNjaHevA6rFyXSOTx85Zd9k9liz5yeTx4PE7Zo/XB+azBrBGcdmkpOZklqUW 6dslcGVcPXqMreAEf8W/E39ZGhh38HQxcnJICJhIPOnfzgJhi0lcuLeerYuRi0NI4CijxOuL T1lBEkICaxklzhyQBbF5BbQlfmx8BhZnEVCV6FpwhR3EZhOwkNhy6z7YIFGBKIlXK26wQtQL Spyc+QQsLiIQIXFuwyZGEJtZIE3i9OzbzCC2MNARp35PY4RY/IJZ4tqS30wgCU4Be4kb2zcB 2RxA14lL9DQGQfTqSUy52gI1R15i+9s5zBB3akssf9bCMoFRaBaS1bOQtMxC0rKAkXkVo2hx anFxbrqRsV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkmRmD4H9zyW3cH4+rXjocYBTgYlXh4FcqVQ4RYE8uKK3MP MUpzsCiJ8y46Ny9YSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTB6dUA2PFtjfPfRqrGnV/+dt837M0 /vjdI1cYU4L0/ZverJv6dPXNeUJ5u0O6l3wz2WB1e2WQoEhywLUC/u+XctQyJ+1oesf5Wu7z HdPN95I8jm5ZIsAy69Wh+jtlQuGLnz+u/x/ue78t6FjtJ3sJ9zD/++HFLRedhX/ZvfI2aZq6 u1VZOc8iweJu7w0lluKMREMt5qLiRADjq8QWYAIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/c0REk00DQ2ELxQceMgmLqJawdVc
Cc: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, Francis Dupont <fdupont@isc.org>, HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs
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: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:49:57 -0000
Thanks for your note, Ted. Group, approving this draft now and starting a new "tris" draft right away does not really make sense. Shall we give Tom a couple of weeks to put together a revision of the draft and then go through a new IETF LC and IESG evaluation? As Ted said, this new process would be easier since the diff would not be that large. Cheers, Gonzalo On 25/09/2014 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Rene Hummen <Rene.Hummen@comsys.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: >> just wondering if the decision was made for us, as RFC5201-bis was approved yesterday: > > The kind of deliberation that you are doing post-IESG-approval on a draft really isn't appropriate. If there is an error in the draft, you should certainly tell me you need to fix it. But if you are having a policy debate about something that wasn't resolved prior to the end of working group last call and IETF last call, I'm afraid it really belongs in a -bis document. And that's what this discussion looks like to me. > > That said, the reason I approved the document yesterday was because when I went hunting through my email for comments relating to the review of the document, I didn't find any, because this discussion hasn't been referring to the document. If there is some *appropriate* fix that needs to be made to the document, I can pull it out of the RFC editor queue or we can address it during AUTH48. But the sort of changes that would be appropriate in that context are quite restricted. > > In order to make substantive changes that represent a new working group consensus, we would have to do a new last call and re-review it in the IESG. I expect that could be done quite expeditiously if the working group decided it was necessary, but you need to tell me now if that's what you want. > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > >
- [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Julien Laganier
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Julien Laganier
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Julien Laganier
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Ted Lemon
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Rene Hummen
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Rene Hummen
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Rene Hummen
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Julien Laganier
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Francis Dupont
- Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs Francis Dupont
- [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Suite … Tobias.Heer
- Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Su… Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Su… Julien Laganier
- Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Su… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Su… Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Su… Rene Hummen
- Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Su… Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Su… Rene Hummen