Hi, I updated the text in section 7. I also moved the 5201 reference to Normative. I think I have put it to the wrong place when I changed it from 5201 to 5201-bis.
Current version: http://jokela.org/ietf/draft-jokela-hip-rfc5202-bis-02-pre3.txt Petri > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Petri Jokela >> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:30 PM >> To: Miika Komu >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] HIP ESP, RFC5202-bis, version 02 >> >> It seems that there I had a wrong xml-version and Jan had edited few >> lines for the official -01 version. This should now be the correct >> version, containing all the modifications: >> >> http://jokela.org/ietf/draft-jokela-hip-rfc5202-bis-02-pre2.txt >> > > Petri, one small change: the list of mandatory keying algorithms at the end > of Section 7 hasn't been updated for the new mandatory algorithms > (draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-07, Section 6.5). However, I would recommend to > instead reference Section 6.5 of RFC5201-bis rather than duplicate the text > here (such as by saying "The number of bits drawn for a given algorithm is > the "natural" size of the keys, as specified in Section 6.5 of > [RFC5201-bis].") > > Speaking of which, shouldn't RFC5201 be a normative reference? > > I am not aware of any major open issues with this draft. > > - Tom > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
