From nobody Tue May 5 06:59:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087AE1ACE5C for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 06:59:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QZcH0jvW_Maq for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 06:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 892961ACE6D for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 06:59:51 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794d6d000004501-7b-5548ccd53786 Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 85.B1.17665.5DCC8455; Tue, 5 May 2015 15:59:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.36.183] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 5 May 2015 15:59:49 +0200 Message-ID: <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 16:59:49 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Henderson , HIP References: <5530E4C1.8070509@ericsson.com> <554780D0.9070301@tomh.org> In-Reply-To: <554780D0.9070301@tomh.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7VMx6hBrv2GFtMXTSZ2aLx7h8m ByaPJUt+MnnsuaYRwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlXF6hknBNKGKBTtvMDUwbuDrYuTkkBAwkVh5 +x8LhC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYGjjBK3p2xmhnBWM0oseb2eCaSKV0Bb4sntK2wgNouAisTuJ1fB bDYBC4ktt+6DTRIViJKY+PUQC0S9oMTJmU/AbBGgmgPH+8BsYQEzien/34L1Cgm4Szw5cIkZ xOYU0JBYeH422C5mAQOJI4vmsELY8hLb385hhqjXllj+rIVlAqPALCQrZiFpmYWkZQEj8ypG 0eLU4uLcdCNjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwKA8uOW37g7G1a8dDzEKcDAq8fAqqHiECrEmlhVX 5h5ilOZgURLntTM+FCIkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBccLGiQESx+LbIpdWrVRa EWi6eNHEL+fuLc5u29+SMTXf4ulMfRu+GWvUuJPunPtUt9q8qeZBxL4W52eRNZUBctvlIiZG tXqK3X4suv38n09977cKTLNadnWXzsHH81XSvrE/eX4opu2//vnn5qLFn/m8+xjeyp0Xmf+q 5YXOLR5f0ZXVhSfb5JVYijMSDbWYi4oTAWy7kskrAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 13:59:55 -0000 Thanks for the review, Tom. Julien, could you please look into Tom's comments and address them in a new revision of the draft? Thanks, Gonzalo On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: > On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >> on May 4th: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/ >> >> Please, send your comments to this list. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo > > I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments. > > (possibly) technical > -------------------- > > RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but > this document only mentions ECDSA. For alignment with RFC 7401, I > suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as > appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same codepoint). > > I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any? If > there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records > may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly > reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records). > > The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a > host wants to register more than one host identity. I suggest something > along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a > single name. It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a > host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned. > The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or > may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is > associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present." > > editorial > --------- > > IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we > are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code > should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification." and "this > document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and > ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR." > > Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with > "degenerate". > > > > > From nobody Tue May 5 07:02:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83EE1ACF60 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 07:02:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83rCOhjozKRQ for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 07:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A03A1ACF16 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 07:01:38 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79b66d000001131-d8-5548cd411ba5 Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 55.06.04401.14DC8455; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:01:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [131.160.36.183] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:01:36 +0200 Message-ID: <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:01:36 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Henderson References: <5530E4A8.70300@ericsson.com> <5547FA8B.9000907@tomh.org> In-Reply-To: <5547FA8B.9000907@tomh.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7jWY9QgzVLJCymLprMbNF49w+T A5PHkiU/mTz2XNMIYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyjjasJOl4CtfxbrJH5gbGN9zdzFyckgImEh8 +tTCCGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgKKNEe8MkKGc1o8T9O10sIFW8AtoSUyffYwWxWQRUJHZPesAG YrMJWEhsuXUfrEZUIEpi4tdDUPWCEidnPgGzRQQUJS4d6gPrZRaQlFi+6RdQLweHsICZxOyZ iSBhIQFXiQVnzoGN5BTQkNj/ro8RotxA4siiOVCt8hLb385hhqjXllj+rIVlAqPgLCTbZiFp mYWkZQEj8ypG0eLU4qTcdCNjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwGA9uOW36g7Gy28cDzEKcDAq8fAq qHiECrEmlhVX5h5ilOZgURLntTM+FCIkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qB0fvLT+lu J6fbutf+iDDonVrlyv0pxHXv521BL94a6u/i+HX736a1x25oq8/iU7i6wPrzi6VR3bPfzE5f dMR/0+lM4QVrBeTkjm28v+2Ut2ehlrrYzk9JN5ZNtXh2K2sJV9XC3b7bZhvfzTd1/n6ivvBn waEFRVVLbI5XRk+vuJLLc+t4Bv+q3itKLMUZiYZazEXFiQDAPfbhNwIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 14:02:10 -0000 Thanks for this review as well, Tom. Julien, Lars, could you please address Tom's comments in a new revision of the draft? Thanks, Gonzalo On 05/05/2015 2:02 AM, Tom Henderson wrote: > On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >> on May 4th: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/ >> >> Please, send your comments to this list. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> > > Here are a few questions/comments on this draft. > > Technical > --------- > Section 4.3.3 (including VIA_RVS) seems to conflict with 4.2.3 (VIA_RVS > parameter definition). Section 4.3.3 states that VIA_RVS is mandatory > if the I1 arrived via a RVS, but 4.2.3 says that the responder MAY > choose to send it for debugging purposes. > > Another point regarding Section 4.2.3: it states that the responder may > include "a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of the > packets." What use cases are there for including more than a single RVS > address (the one that was used)? Would more than one RVS ever need to > be traversed between initiator and responder? I don't think the draft > supports such security relationships, so perhaps it would be best to > explicitly say it is out of scope. > > Editorial > ---------- > Section 6 (IANA) needs to be updated to request the new action items of > IANA, not the ones previously asked when 5204 was published. > Accordingly, IANA is not assigning new Parameter Types but instead this > draft should request that IANA update the reference for these three > types from 5204 to this document. The same holds for the Registration > Type value. > > - Tom From nobody Tue May 5 17:03:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318971B2AB4 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:03:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cW8wnoNdsmAY for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x235.google.com (mail-yk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA8081B2AA2 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykft189 with SMTP id t189so47431136ykf.1 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2rSje0t7PTrxEgB50OmmX092XC57SeAvuUpvnCbVR14=; b=oY0VFWWvwpyacVYu0H3rTCpNumxBRh69F/jjEkb8oq94KpxAWtgBLHR0uRzPzrmE51 NmX7qKvtD8PzhjJPkIEquU48mV9f4GNTyJY6QNXv261CEzRCks+VDBXifetuoRRO2CEw +yWx2kJT6JPMfkvLqu2lW7Pj8V5yBiKOldDuijH0f80f7qwf9MVRXSqLM+FOxFBkwFsb vtE3+robT7S4kRuISfct3KX5/wAXGCg5LdmGTe0Fbwafz7Z7Pb9OtRCiVZvcjD8YvqAM GCgMxDevnm+osI7OaA2IyEhIYtbvBrZEEzaQNClcKssYcxlYBhJTWOLGA0qPBTPAYlTl nu2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.218.86 with SMTP id k83mr26561282ykf.6.1430870568198; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com> References: <5530E4A8.70300@ericsson.com> <5547FA8B.9000907@tomh.org> <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 00:03:18 -0000 Thanks for the review Tom, we will address your WGLC comments ASAP. --julien On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Thanks for this review as well, Tom. > > Julien, Lars, could you please address Tom's comments in a new revision > of the draft? > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > On 05/05/2015 2:02 AM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >>> on May 4th: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/ >>> >>> Please, send your comments to this list. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>> >> >> Here are a few questions/comments on this draft. >> >> Technical >> --------- >> Section 4.3.3 (including VIA_RVS) seems to conflict with 4.2.3 (VIA_RVS >> parameter definition). Section 4.3.3 states that VIA_RVS is mandatory >> if the I1 arrived via a RVS, but 4.2.3 says that the responder MAY >> choose to send it for debugging purposes. >> >> Another point regarding Section 4.2.3: it states that the responder may >> include "a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of the >> packets." What use cases are there for including more than a single RVS >> address (the one that was used)? Would more than one RVS ever need to >> be traversed between initiator and responder? I don't think the draft >> supports such security relationships, so perhaps it would be best to >> explicitly say it is out of scope. >> >> Editorial >> ---------- >> Section 6 (IANA) needs to be updated to request the new action items of >> IANA, not the ones previously asked when 5204 was published. >> Accordingly, IANA is not assigning new Parameter Types but instead this >> draft should request that IANA update the reference for these three >> types from 5204 to this document. The same holds for the Registration >> Type value. >> >> - Tom > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From nobody Tue May 5 17:09:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8F61A89BB for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q0cHtDiyXVWY for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com (mail-yk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3F271A89FC for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykep21 with SMTP id p21so47187850yke.3 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KnTwq5Whwcc14kEQIdGVS8sumsg4cDA+UruBBzPqwkk=; b=y+g6F04LtjF7jLb8kK6Vzix8iGrdw4x9eEsSuEXWVRBPiRg73hioEME3dlf9iSBwLA s5DuwLigHRPGgg7avBc8m9SP6IydEe4V4BIrlPefuA3XBYuMXf9XKl55Xtte0+phLAz0 U8dQ05rVZfC5urJx3m6cm9rv5DJBEcuMNLiQ88keAVN+fb6zaitRiaBZbZt2WjTXqB4d BOO0gR5maCz2sM6KUeoRDpYXX+GiS0+XUCo9/wRQWRk12ysI7CueOlG0tNMQGSXxLFSw nGylb3Gu0tDejv91jWeju9X3uv9UY5YcX85Cc67OnX3zft7f9IWkq+smbcsXVVqgQ5pZ JYrQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.26.43 with SMTP id b31mr12632610yha.53.1430870972023; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com> References: <5530E4C1.8070509@ericsson.com> <554780D0.9070301@tomh.org> <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: Julien Laganier To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 00:09:35 -0000 Thanks for the review Tom, I will address your WGLC comments ASAP. --julien On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Thanks for the review, Tom. > > Julien, could you please look into Tom's comments and address them in a > new revision of the draft? > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >>> on May 4th: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/ >>> >>> Please, send your comments to this list. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >> >> I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments. >> >> (possibly) technical >> -------------------- >> >> RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but >> this document only mentions ECDSA. For alignment with RFC 7401, I >> suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as >> appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same codepoint). >> >> I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any? If >> there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records >> may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly >> reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records). >> >> The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a >> host wants to register more than one host identity. I suggest something >> along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a >> single name. It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a >> host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned. >> The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or >> may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is >> associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present." >> >> editorial >> --------- >> >> IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we >> are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code >> should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification." and "this >> document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and >> ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR." >> >> Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with >> "degenerate". >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec