IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] processing review comments on RFC 5201-bis

Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Mon, 30 June 2014 20:11 UTC

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 125271A037D for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.526 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, RCVD_IN_SBL=0.141, 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 bHyLhoxn6tgf for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 415CC1A02FB for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4665 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jun 2014 20:11:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 2014 20:11:36 -0000
Received: from box528.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.128]) by cmgw3 with id LkBW1o0082molgS01kBZwj; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:11:36 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=U6cBU4bu 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=Z9rLFpqb_HIA:10 a=q7J0aIbBmN8A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=HYWc1YUsAAAA:8 a=IA_2sfgTpx8A:10 a=rREcAdlOb-AA:10 a=Fae6CvlGR6wz3-q2ugwA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA: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=aiobI/4wvAxPZuDgX+RcBPM1VAOopUZaHPlJoQYL1Aw=; b=rMogY+rqu6cOLSBUh5V+DM32mtSP7WeYpI9+xFfwLibulJPPBnP/7Qc88N4mZ42G8I4A5VRZp9wB4ZzzKgBJVvBQzgkeDFsNZBM7EvkTq9gM1Mi5gjIOVU6b0+QmW+dI;
Received: from [71.231.123.189] (port=41117 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 1X1hvD-0007oW-SR; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:11:27 -0600
Message-ID: <53B1C46B.10307@tomh.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:11:23 -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: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
References: <201406301155.s5UBtAEc021262@givry.fdupont.fr>
In-Reply-To: <201406301155.s5UBtAEc021262@givry.fdupont.fr>
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/3zqhro3xLHv3FmkI-4-QaYq8l34
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] processing review comments on RFC 5201-bis
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, 30 Jun 2014 20:11:43 -0000

On 06/30/2014 04:55 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
>   In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>>   Hi all, we received a number of comments during the IESG evaluation of
>>   RFC 5201-bis.  Below are the non-editorial comments.  There were also
>>   several IANA questions that I plan to handle in a separate message.
>
> => as a co-author of RFC 4843bis I found a mismatch between 4843bis,
> section 3.2 and appendix E... (PS: my proposal is to follow 3.2,
> add "truncated " in the 4843bis example, and cleanup the table 11
> of appendix E).
>

Francis,

I had a look at appendix E but couldn't determine what you are 
suggesting be changed; could you propose some specific text?

While we are on this topic, Tom Taylor had suggested as an editorial 
comment:

"Appendix E, opening sentence:  ORCHID prefix is now 23 bits, not 28 bits."

but I believe that this is not correct (ORCHID prefix will eventually be 
28 bits long out of the 2001::/23 space, if I am not mistaken).

- Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email