Subject: [Hipsec] Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:06:40 +0300

Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis,

the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01

RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that
it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a
normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the
publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis,
and RFC5205bis).

Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on
your plans to revise this document?

Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated
reference?

  draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Samu Varjonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:04 +0300

Hi all,

yes, we will update the document as soon as possible.

BR,
Samu Varjonen

On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:10:03 +0300

Hi Samu,

thanks for having revised RFC6253bis:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/

Could you please let us know the current status of the draft now that it
has been revised? That is, what needs to happen next and what is needed
overall before the draft is ready for WGLC.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Samu Varjonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:14:52 +0300

Hi,

to my knowledge rfc6253-bis does not need changes to work with rfc7401. Review 
and comments would still be welcome.

-Samu

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:39:51 +0300

Hi Samu,

to be clear, you are saying that the draft is ready for Working Group
Last Call, is that right?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 01/07/2015 9:14 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> to my knowledge rfc6253-bis does not need changes to work with rfc7401.
> Review and comments would still be welcome.
> 
> -Samu
>