Return-Path: <tomh@tomh.org>
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 D8C271A0466
 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat,  6 Sep 2014 08:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 MIBeadBOb41e for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Sat,  6 Sep 2014 08:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com
 (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D5FB31A045D
 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sat,  6 Sep 2014 08:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21922 invoked by uid 0); 6 Sep 2014 15:37:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84)
 by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 6 Sep 2014 15:37:30 -0000
Received: from box528.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.128]) by cmgw3 with 
 id nxdL1o0052molgS01xdPfx; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 15:37:29 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=DIUcvU9b c=1 sm=1 tr=0
 a=K/474su/0lCI2gKrDs9DLw==:117 a=K/474su/0lCI2gKrDs9DLw==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8
 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=ZSdzdHkL1-cA:10 a=eJebKyjBspgA:10 a=AGHQCz_AdLoA:10
 a=q7J0aIbBmN8A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=HYWc1YUsAAAA:8 a=IA_2sfgTpx8A:10
 a=rREcAdlOb-AA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Bo2SRHC5O18uxlBIJbwA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
 a=ShTCMQEWBIUA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tomh.org;
 s=default; 
 h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID;
 bh=UDgswb4zbxmxgXRhsTF04+HE4VBdLzdJYcQX84F4yGE=; 
 b=r6j6GJM+fRu770/4Bf/S5itFIy+g9cYN8nPo5QbQ8ItVVNM6EYYy7wEdmT9LAgi8XaAl5eUhvMj/JLEtQA5gcFLQn2/OiLy8K/NRvxwXZWfSDSkfRk09V+r6FsUx/Vvz;
Received: from [71.231.123.189] (port=47672 helo=[192.168.168.42])
 by box528.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <tomh@tomh.org>)
 id 1XQI3F-0001pE-9y; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 09:37:21 -0600
Message-ID: <540B2A2E.9040905@tomh.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 08:37:18 -0700
From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <20140905182558.7340.5516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <540A04E3.2040203@tomh.org>
 <9BFCB5CC-FD77-49C2-9A67-39AEB45530D1@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <9BFCB5CC-FD77-49C2-9A67-39AEB45530D1@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {3122:box528.bluehost.com:tomhorg:tomh.org} {sentby:smtp
 auth 71.231.123.189 authed with tomh@tomh.org}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/zY7qhM1F57MMHwtJxBVa68Gf61w
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>,
 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr,
 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 15:37:33 -0000

On 09/06/2014 08:25 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 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?
>

Ted,

I believe that there is only one open issue left from the Gen-Art 
review, regarding possible plaintext attacks:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/42

The list discussion on this issue leans against making any change; see 
the last message of this thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03903.html

I think I previously handled all of the other comments; if I missed any, 
please point them out.

I have tried to contact Francis a couple of times regarding 
clarification of his comments and have not seen a reply.  This is 
tracked in issue:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/49

I'm cc'ing both Tom Taylor and Francis for any further clarifications.

- Tom