Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.3 - This fails to distinguish between an invalid certificate (e.g. bad signature, unknown signer) and one that is valid, but is not acceptable for this purpose. I don't get why that is ok for HIP, can you explain? If it is ok, I think you need to say so. If it is not ok (as I'd suspect) then you appear to need to change text or one more new error code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 7 - I'm fine that this doesn't repeat stuff from 5203, but a sentence saying to go look there too would maybe be good. (I'm not sure if that would fix Alexey's discuss or not. If not, then ignore me and just talk to him about his discuss.) _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
