Re: [Hipsec] clarification on HIT Suite IDs

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

sure, the idea is to finish the discussions. If the conclusion is that
there is no need to significantly change the draft, then a new IETF LC
will not be needed.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 25/09/2014 2:15 PM, Rene Hummen wrote:
> Thanks Ted for clarifying.
> 
> On 25 Sep 2014, at 14:49, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Should we first agree that we indeed want to separate the HIT suite ID from the OGA ID and that a simple clarification of how a HIT suite ID maps to an OGA ID does not suffice? The latter would probably be a minor edit that could still be fixed without starting a new evaluation round.
> 
>> On 25/09/2014 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Rene Hummen <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student
> Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems
> RWTH Aachen University, Germany
> tel: [phone]
> web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/
>