Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Varjonen Samu <samu.varjonen@cs.helsinki.fi> Wed, 06 July 2016 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <samu.varjonen@cs.helsinki.fi>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F59F12D18A; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 04:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.728
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.helsinki.fi
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 kIh9vTxCtOL3; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 04:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from script.cs.helsinki.fi (script.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.11.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96A4912D0CC; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 04:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-DKIM: Courier DKIM Filter v0.50+pk-2016-01-27 mail.cs.helsinki.fi Wed, 06 Jul 2016 14:00:00 +0300
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.helsinki.fi; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= dkim20130528; bh=Nzd4GfpSZQowAhNalleyRNp7Fpq5TjlHB2L3zepKOEg=; b= DWr/TIFqwuJL19IRYadmxAhp7LerouKrjyAiSDu6BXiB+B0KP5OSb0rCjGviSfdj lhQHrH+uIa829fPHDxSRhaXvrl1i+RM+9TSXi7fMuFOZLAQAm3PSYs0Qr5p4duoZ r6zLTcBH0tNiSnmfI3k0Jc6SreEP+mpSlw0jhEUw1Vc=
Received: from [128.214.10.115] (hpf-7.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.10.115]) (AUTH: PLAIN sklvarjo, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by mail.cs.helsinki.fi with ESMTPSA; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 14:00:00 +0300 id 00000000005A0027.00000000577CE4B0.00002E78
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160702105813.14802.25495.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Varjonen Samu <samu.varjonen@cs.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <577CE4AF.6070003@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:59:59 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160702105813.14802.25495.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/futNL5L2EtMjNP79p_L4jeMt7oE>
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, hip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 11:00:08 -0000

Hi,

bis-09 has a new IANA considerations section that is based on the old one and 
clearly marks the changes to be made to the registry.

I agree that the DN problem is not a HIP problem.

-Samu

On 02/07/16 13:58, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a
> document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document
> creates new subregistries. This makes the status of earlier established
> registries unclear.
> I think you should copy the original IANA registration section in its
> entirety and clearly mark new allocations in it.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject DN doesn't necessarily identify a single certificate. But I am
> not sure whether this is a problem for HIP.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec