Hi Alexey, The IANA Considerations used to be a copy of RFC 5205 but someone asked that it be cleaned up. I will copy it back in the next revision. I will also clarify that the base64 encoding from section 4 is to be used, similar to DNSSEC RRs.
Thanks. --julien On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09: 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-rfc5205-bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is the same as Ben's DISCUSS point, but I think this is important > enough to fix: > > Please replicate the appropriate info from the RFC 5205 IANA > considerations. The similar section in this draft does not seem to stand > alone. Readers should not need to refer back to the obsoleted RFC to > understand this version. > > RFC 4648 actually has 2 base64 encodings, so you should say which section > number you mean (section 4 or section 5). I suspect you meant section 5. > > > > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
