Hi,
bis-09 has a new IANA considerations section that is based on the old one and
clearly marks the changes to be made to the registry.
I agree that the DN problem is not a HIP problem.
-Samu
On 02/07/16 13:58, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08: 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-rfc6253-bis/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a
document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document
creates new subregistries. This makes the status of earlier established
registries unclear.
I think you should copy the original IANA registration section in its
entirety and clearly mark new allocations in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject DN doesn't necessarily identify a single certificate. But I am
not sure whether this is a problem for HIP.
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
