IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 23 June 2014 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A941B296A for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 fTLNU4cZON6O for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 021B11B2B3D for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DE31B81C7 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFDF190071; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (174.62.147.182) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:43:15 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhju4kfj=YXjJN-rMXDNd-zLy4zLawf_2jcBh26CiFSJ99A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:43:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0B09A467-1447-4D61-804D-9DD581A89275@nominum.com>
References: <20140528160426.31345.98483.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140607073853.0b975758@resistor.net> <CAE_dhju4kfj=YXjJN-rMXDNd-zLy4zLawf_2jcBh26CiFSJ99A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Originating-IP: [174.62.147.182]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/q4zKO4KxHZnTWgLvPxDgWXgxRRw
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Francis Dupont <fdupont@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:43:21 -0000

On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> This provides useful information on the need for an allocation for
> the time being, and I believe can be edited as you suggest as an
> editorial change during AUTH48 once the draft has been approved by
> IESG.

SM, are you satisfied with Julien's response?

Julien, I'd prefer that you update the draft--it would be highly unusual to address IETF last call comments during AUTH48.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status