On 10/28/2014 07:00 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
I wrote a checksum generator, and I have independently verified that the
checksums in RFC5201-bis are correct.
Miika, thank you for checking this.
This leaves one open issue, regarding the clarifications to
HIT_SUITE_LIST. I originally put a diff proposal here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre.diff
This proposal drew one review on the list from Rene, who suggested the
following:
1) swap the encoding of the HIT Suite IDs to use the lower four-order
bits instead of the higher four-order bits
2) fix an editorial reference to “HMAC parameter” -> “HIP_MAC and
HIP_MAC_2 parameters” (or RHASH function).
3) change one of the proposed 'should' words to 'SHOULD'
While I am sympathetic to Rene's argument in 1), no one else has
supported this change on the list, so given the late stage of this
document, I would suggest to keep the encoding as is. The changes
proposed in 2) and 3) are editorial, in my view, so I don't see a
problem to accept them.
I regenerated the diff according to Rene's suggestions, and posted it here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre-2.diff
So in summary, I would like to now convey to our AD that we have a diff
to the version -19 draft that is editorial/clarification in nature, and
ask whether and how it can be handled procedurally, such as:
- publish a -20 and revisit some of the reviews (since version -19 was
officially reviewed and approved, I don't know what it means to now post
a -20 version)
- avoid publishing a -20 and handle these changes similar to AUTH48 changes
- scrap the diff and just publish version -19
Our AD can let us know how he prefers to handle it.
- Tom
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
