Subject: [Hipsec] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 07:22:13 -0700

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.

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 07:23:12 -0700

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