Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: (with DISCUSS)

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Fri, 05 August 2016 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 3045612D8CE; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=WRY2jxUZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=f3YyTMLb
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 5kueAZuZXgX4; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F08D312D8D4; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99FF206A0; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:56:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 Aug 2016 10:56:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=ZRrRpMMMgX+EYGb42IOspXVRM+g=; b=WRY2jx UZV7KbZjCnqPrBjmk3gTvp4+Ug+l5wXhGp7o4BMV2/ov8/SuiZqQQftmRFicfgMI M8DFZnVgs0sJ1d9Zyy7UyiCi8YeRbJusXNw76H+YJyul6nRpEd4q4tUoLzoKsJ8v pE8khRne/O9/qi2ISy/c5/tHrvQfDBki4Th7A=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=ZRrRpMMMgX+EYGb 42IOspXVRM+g=; b=f3YyTMLbOTDJLMfEYjkBaMeEc6Wm3t5mKOgFcTvedrX9G0/ k9AMQamt6OjZ4ME2sSxG7iClwSD5jO6PPPOgMtvU92xAKld5p0hvC75DfWR2PLHt 9M/g7VfUUtrYzqC0wmOQTEWWt2TgvD6fuuaEhhxMhEjCda9AI1tNMqmgPa5I=
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 7FF236A256; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:56:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1470408986.3305145.687024713.3CB59058@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: DPFv68Gw+u/iyy6178E9kGeNz/j0GRfzULiJI8jXnU6P 1470408986
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-b9085e99
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:56:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjuB3gi2Vamxgs56GGTnJKwW8iMy9f+U8PcFKEtmLuLhKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160706142213.7773.71894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAE_dhjtVzvwBci+LWzwO6BZNH9v-beTxcRkzNewZSYevKQ-xdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE_dhjuB3gi2Vamxgs56GGTnJKwW8iMy9f+U8PcFKEtmLuLhKA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/ifk_dbYMtfmVzJpGhjV-Ej_2IXQ>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis@ietf.org, hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: (with DISCUSS)
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: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:56:33 -0000

Hi Julien,
I have cleared my DISCUSS on the 3 drafts that you updated.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016, at 01:47 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> FYI I've addresses your concern with the IANA considerations as
> discussed in the last draft revision.
> 
> Best,
> 
> --julien
> 
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
> > Hi Alexey,
> >
> > The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5205 but someone
> > asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision.
> > I will also clarify that the base64 encoding from section 4 is to be
> > used, similar to DNSSEC RRs.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --julien
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; wrote:
> >> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: 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-rfc5205-bis/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> DISCUSS:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> This is the same as Ben's DISCUSS point, but I think this is important
> >> enough to fix:
> >>
> >>  Please replicate the appropriate info from the RFC 5205 IANA
> >> considerations. The similar section in this draft does not seem to stand
> >> alone. Readers should not need to refer back to the obsoleted RFC to
> >> understand this version.
> >>
> >> RFC 4648 actually has 2 base64 encodings, so you should say which section
> >> number you mean (section 4 or section 5). I suspect you meant section 5.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>