Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 06 September 2014 15:25 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 10BBC1A0450 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] 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 afxbTx5hCf2A for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:25:53 -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 4F94F1A0417 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:25:53 -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 Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000A31B85D5 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:25:52 -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 BEB1253E074; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:25:52 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <540A04E3.2040203@tomh.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:25:42 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9BFCB5CC-FD77-49C2-9A67-39AEB45530D1@nominum.com>
References: <20140905182558.7340.5516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <540A04E3.2040203@tomh.org>
To: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/wp4tUv8jGbOw7PV7KLig_lSfLxo
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status
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: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 15:25:54 -0000
It looks like the latest rev of 5201-bis does not address the gen-art review comments nor Francis Dupont's comments, and I haven't seen any follow-up discussion on Francis' comments. What do the authors believe the status of these two comment threads is?
- [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-1… internet-drafts
- [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Ted Lemon
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Taylor
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Jari Arkko
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Jari Arkko
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Ted Lemon
- Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Gonzalo Camarillo