Thanks for the review Tom, I will address your WGLC comments ASAP. --julien
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the review, Tom. > > Julien, could you please look into Tom's comments and address them in a > new revision of the draft? > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >>> on May 4th: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/ >>> >>> Please, send your comments to this list. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >> >> I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments. >> >> (possibly) technical >> -------------------- >> >> RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but >> this document only mentions ECDSA. For alignment with RFC 7401, I >> suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as >> appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same codepoint). >> >> I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any? If >> there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records >> may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly >> reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records). >> >> The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a >> host wants to register more than one host identity. I suggest something >> along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a >> single name. It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a >> host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned. >> The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or >> may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is >> associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present." >> >> editorial >> --------- >> >> IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we >> are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code >> should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification." and "this >> document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and >> ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR." >> >> Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with >> "degenerate". >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
