Re: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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