An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)
RFC 7343

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Search Mailarchive

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2014-06-24 for -06)
Thanks for doing this document.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Ted Lemon) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

Alia Atlas No Objection

Benoit Claise No Objection

Comment (2014-06-26 for -07)
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.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-06-26 for -07)
- 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?

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-06-23 for -05)
Good update, and I'm glad this is going to Standards Track.

The IANA considerations has a slight change due, which we discussed.

Kathleen Moriarty (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2014-06-27)
Thanks for adding the text on security related to truncation.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection