Subject: [Hipsec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:13:32 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08: No Objection

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-rfc6253-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Alexey's discuss comment that the IANA considerations from
the obsoleted RFC need to be pulled forward to this one. In my opinion,
if the RFC is obsoleted, one should no longer need to read it.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:18:59 +0100

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 02:13, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

The last sentence is exactly what I was trying to convey.

---

From: Varjonen Samu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:00:46 +0300

HI,

bis-09 has a new IANA considerations section that is based on the old one and 
clearly marks the changes to be made to the registry.

-Samu

On 06/07/16 04:13, Ben Campbell wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec