Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
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 C24D612B00F; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 I7AElGG6KBFv; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x243.google.com (mail-ob0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AFC712B077; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-x243.google.com with SMTP id jg10so2068781obb.0; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 07:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=a+M8USoNRkI9uLerew/99GKkIPbQlTx+5ppv2yVOKSU=; b=X6IMlOSgKNTIbNCB9Zulby3ceMr+zszmWa8h4bZMyaFe5XrwX0159EwMCXMwQJpD9F qDJNSgxIzee7liUdMqbBrzirbVgg9FcfPeM6b91L2RcEBd22phEEe1GwOk5YkMQ9qJUA 7BHbczdHO4FiK0xAWuUzg49TOlEnpZkWFNC3GqYFr66dDjdtjnUeH3xEpRfFGs5kMi3S /2Zx2jl7KTuw13IB63hNzyYV0Vdeh6Pf8fvdD53OfS597eJD2goK7DEFlSXVOZtAAt9D 98YzoaKNiC6rEnx6pKg/FCyj4CyUfVvKCCI9jC2O9zVMQ+vLe47uImVZHXMB0kHHXjpt B6/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a+M8USoNRkI9uLerew/99GKkIPbQlTx+5ppv2yVOKSU=; b=VAr372qTzcigqGxpsmnMHXuoKcPHbI6JqQzcfvGr+Wn0R4SqYtsZB0TMbD8FWcJvVA 5KA6exI2HzIGeZ+daTJjAglXSwHbpech9j4RLK2/+UJ5AWVJBvZiBRwFqNxQq2DDXKNm Yl5vQW9WCPHja4KdY7keVpGmQZXvGy5vE9lkUKRbvqT1ygNU5ofpVmsRsgEWyA0M95Gx kQnT15zv4MH+fg9t4RmAUdWcAOhGna1Wg2xaV5MxOqujEJJ5+Hu3fQk6Dhft5TjvRfyZ fXr7ZFJH6q5mn1Dvl8pvkEHs4IfZqBPex6JjrxTJUOUlONVFeJjqISIigQocS9fAED4D VFZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLQEJ5mw4l9xfb9sHAP5CBI/apDlieAbdqbE9xxS/jOKeK2yJ+cmUXTeJpBUhwwwR8dGSXByIL2at9DWw==
X-Received: by 10.157.7.17 with SMTP id 17mr3252973ote.168.1467987470314; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.47.164 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160706183132.26740.62538.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160706183132.26740.62538.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:17:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjv76Z2wgotxEpAukHnwoUeZQiY-LO-Wphm49vPhjMN3kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/uDjoiFj16Ppe_3Qhu9bjhYImG_s>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: (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: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:17:57 -0000

Hi Alexey,

The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5204 but someone
asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision.

Thanks.

--julien


On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>; wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07: 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-rfc5204-bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The IANA considerations section does not seem to stand alone without
> reading RFC 5204. As you are obsoleting RFC 5204, readers shouldn't be
> expected to read it in order to discover original IANA instructions.
> I think you should copy information from RFC 5204.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In Section 6:
>
>    This section is to be interpreted according to the Guidelines for
>    Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs [RFC5226].
>
> This sentence is not needed, because RFC 5204 didn't define any
> registries, so none of the text from RFC 5226 applies. I suggest you
> delete this sentence.
>
>