Hi Gonzalo & all,
all but one of the nits are easily fixed. The one downref to RFC2693 is the only
harder one as I do not think it will ever proceed to anything more than
experimental. The work on RFC 2693 stopped in 1999. Over 114 papers have been
written about it since. Even few this year but all point to that experimental
RFC. Moreover, it seems (in my opinion) that currently there is little or no
interest in continuing SPKI work nor there is any interest in the industry to
implement SPKI as it basically provides the functionality of X509v3 with
different syntax. One option would be to remove the examples and mentions about
SPKI in the RFC6253bis. What do you guys think?
BR,
Samu Varjonen
On 02/10/15 13:15, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Hi Samu,
thanks for revising the draft. There are still a few things that need to
be fixed before I can request its publication. From the output of the
nits tool:
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt
-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC6253, but
the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.
You need to add an Obsoletes: header to the header part at the beginning
of the draft. Additionally, you also need to add an Updates header as
follows:
Obsoletes: 6253
Updates: 7401
Note that the original RFC updated RFC 5201 and, thus, had an Updates
header:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6253
== The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually
necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that
take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all
authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78
rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer.
Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment.
(See the Legal Provisions document at
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
You are the same authors as in the original RFC. Do you both agree to
remove the disclaimer?
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4843' is defined on line 349, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
Does this reference need to be removed or used somewhere in the text?
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 2693
RFC 6232bis is intended to be a Proposed Standard. Can we reference a
Standards Track RFC instead of this one? Otherwise, we will need to talk
with our AD so make sure it is OK to normatively reference an
Experimental RFC.
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4843 (Obsoleted by RFC 7343)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5996 (Obsoleted by RFC 7296)
Could you please update the two references above?
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6253
This downref is obviously OK... but what about making it an
Informational reference instead?
Could you please revise the draft addressing all the comments above?
Thanks,
Gonzalo
On 22/09/2015 1:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the
IETF.
Title : Host Identity Protocol Certificates
Authors : Tobias Heer
Samu Varjonen
Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt
Pages : 11
Date : 2015-09-22
Abstract:
The Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital
certificates. It is used for carrying these certificates in Host
Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets. This document specifies the
certificate parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed
verification. Additionally, this document specifies the
representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and
Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates.
The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates
are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful
or failed verification, are specific to the scenario in which the
certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario-
specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT
parameter.
This document extends RFC7401 and obsoletes RFC6253.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
