Hi Julien, same question about this draft. When do you intend to revise it?
Cheers, Gonzalo On 06/05/2015 2:09 AM, Julien Laganier wrote: > 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
