An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)
draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-08
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ted Lemon)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Pete Resnick)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-06-24 for -06)
Unknown
Thanks for doing this document.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-06-23 for -05)
Unknown
Good update, and I'm glad this is going to Standards Track. The IANA considerations has a slight change due, which we discussed.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-06-26 for -07)
Unknown
Thanks for http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-07#appendix-B. Always appreciated. Below is the OPS-DIR review from Sue. Technical/Administrative issue: The IANA text for section 6 clearly identifies the IANA registry. However, I’m not clear about the form IANA wants to review the entry for this table: http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml The authors should verify with IANA that the form of their IANA consideration sections is as IANA wants to see it. Editorial Nit Comments (should fix, but not required) Section 5 paragraph 2 Old: “Therefore, the present design allows to use different hash functions to be used per given Context ID for constructing ORCHIDs from input bit strings. “ New: “Therefore, the present design allows the use of different hash functions per Given Context ID for constructing ORCHIDS for input bit strings.” Grammatical note for Julien and Francis: Old sentences utilizes the infinitive form (to use/to be used) without having any real verb. Since this is a specification going with the present tense verb provides a precise definition.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-06-27)
Unknown
Thanks for adding the text on security related to truncation.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-06-26 for -07)
Unknown
- I was a bit surprised not to see an OGA value being defined for e.g. sha256. Why is that not here? (Put another way, I didn't get the meaning of the 2nd para of section 6.) - No need to answer this if you don't care, which is probably the case, I'm just curious:-) We added a special reserved value to RFC6920 for ORCHIDs. Should that now be changed or something?