FYI I've addresses your concern with the IANA considerations as discussed in the last draft revision.
Best, --julien On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Julien Laganier <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
