Hi Alexey, FYI I've addresses your concern with the IANA considerations as discussed in the last draft revision.
Best, --julien On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: 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-rfc5203-bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a > document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document > creates new subregistries. This makes the status of earlier established > registries unclear. Also, other sections have references to Section 7 > (e.g. for registration types) which no longer contain relevant > information. > I think you should copy the original IANA registration section in its > entirety and clearly mark new allocations in it. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I found the "changed since" Appendix, so never mind that ;-) > > It would be good if the document said that a registration type is 1 octet > without the need to look at the packet diagrams or IANA registration text > from RFC 5203 that you deleted. > > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
