Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.txt

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:10:05 -0800

Thanks for the review, Francis, and my apologies for the belated
reply. Please see my answers to your comments inlined below:

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Francis Dupont
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>  [...]
> Summary: Ready
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  - 2 page 3: (comment!) I looked at if the re-registration is a refresh or
>   a renew (I worked too long on DHCP these times :-): it is soft state
>   so I agree the term refresh is the right one.

Ok. No change made.

>  - 3.3 page 4: the short description of what is "valid and accepted"
>   for a certificate is very loose. I don't know if it will be enough
>   for the security directorate... wait and see?

Yes, let's see if the sec-dir wants changes made in that respect. No
change made.

>  - 4.[2-5] pages 6 to 9: the section titles should be at the beginning of
>   the page, not at the end. Note the formatting will be fixed by the
>   RFC Editor anyway.

Yes, the RFC Editor will fix the formatting later. No change made.

>  - 4.[2-5] pages 7 to 10: there is no details about the padding, e.g.,
>   the padding is for a length which is a multiple of 8 bytes. IMHO
>   you should add a reference to RFC 7401 section 5.2 "HIP Parameters"
>   in section 4 so someone who wants a response to this question
>   (or why types are even) knows where to go.

Good suggestion. I've added a sentence to that effect to the
introductory paragraph:

4.  Parameter Formats and Processing

   This section describes the format and processing of the new
   parameters introduced by the HIP registration extension.  The
   encoding of these new parameters is conforms to the HIPv2 TLV format
   described in section 5.2.1 of RFC7401 [RFC7401].

Regards, and happy new year.

--julien