Re: Comments on RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis
Samu Varjonen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.hipsec,gmane.ietf.hip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, to my knowledge rfc6253-bis does not need changes to work with rfc7401. Review and comments would still be welcome. -Samu On 30/06/15 10:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi Samu, > > thanks for having revised RFC6253bis: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ > > Could you please let us know the current status of the draft now that it > has been revised? That is, what needs to happen next and what is needed > overall before the draft is ready for WGLC. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > On 23/06/2015 11:15 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> yes, we will update the document as soon as possible. >> >> BR, >> Samu Varjonen >> >> On 19/06/15 10:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Authors of RFC5203bis and RFC6253bis, >>> >>> the RFC5203bis document has a Normative reference to RFC6263bis: >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-08#section-3.3 >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 >>> >>> RFC 6253bis is an expired document. First we need to revise it so that >>> it re-appears in the IETF archives. Additionally, since it is a >>> normative dependency of RFC5203bis, we should include it in the >>> publication batch we are currently working on (RFC5203bis, RFC5204bis, >>> and RFC5205bis). >>> >>> Authors of RFC6253, could you please provide the WG with am update on >>> your plans to revise this document? >>> >>> Authors of RFC5203bis, could you please update the following outdated >>> reference? >>> >>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis -> RFC 7401 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> >>