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 <[email protected]> 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. > > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
