Re: [Hipsec] New WG items

Most of our -bis-00 documents have been posted. Our chairs are on 
vacation, and I want to thank our AD, Ralph Drom for stepping in and 
getting them approved.

Ralph DID point out one issue with our approach for the 00 versions:

=============================================================

Following up on my comments about content in the -bis documents, here is 
text from section 3.1 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html:

D. if your document obsoletes or updates a previous RFC, then:
* say so in the abstract.
* Explain in the introduction how and why this document updates or 
obsoletes an earlier document.
* Add a section that describes the changes from the document that is 
being updated or obsoleted.

- Ralph

=============================================================

So I will be posting a -bis-01 for 4423 and 5201 with these changes only 
as soon as I can. Then I will follow up with the current state of IDs; 
most likely early next week as -bis-02.

On 08/16/2010 06:24 PM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Laganier, Julien
>> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 3:19 PM
>> To: Tobias Heer; Gonzalo Camarillo
>> Cc: HIP
>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] New WG items
>>
>> Right, I'd like to submit copies of the original RFCs as
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfcxxxx-bis-00 that can serve as a baseline to
>> see what change occurred:
>>
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-00
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-00
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-00
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-00
>>
>> Can I go ahead?
>>      
> Likewise, I would also like to submit:
> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-00
>
> - Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>
>    