Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 25 September 2014 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7892C1A6FCD for <>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.787
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uIl2fDVVul5J for <>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61DDB1A6FC7 for <>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26AC1B8590 for <>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE88253E07B; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:35:25 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:35:06 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Rene Hummen <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: []
Cc: Julien Laganier <>, Francis Dupont <>, HIP <>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs
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: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:35:28 -0000

On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Rene Hummen <> 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.