Hi Alexey, Thank you!
--julien On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Julien, > I have cleared my DISCUSS on the 3 drafts that you updated. > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016, at 01:47 AM, Julien Laganier wrote: >> FYI I've addresses your concern with the IANA considerations as >> discussed in the last draft revision. >> >> Best, >> >> --julien >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Julien Laganier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi Alexey, >> > >> > The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5205 but someone >> > asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision. >> > I will also clarify that the base64 encoding from section 4 is to be >> > used, similar to DNSSEC RRs. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > --julien >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for >> >> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: 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-rfc5205-bis/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> DISCUSS: >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> This is the same as Ben's DISCUSS point, but I think this is important >> >> enough to fix: >> >> >> >> Please replicate the appropriate info from the RFC 5205 IANA >> >> considerations. The similar section in this draft does not seem to stand >> >> alone. Readers should not need to refer back to the obsoleted RFC to >> >> understand this version. >> >> >> >> RFC 4648 actually has 2 base64 encodings, so you should say which section >> >> number you mean (section 4 or section 5). I suspect you meant section 5. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
