Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension
RFC 8003
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and comments.
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Alexey's discuss comment.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
This bis draft was an improvement. I did have one question. I'm trying to visualize why The registrar indicates the minimum and maximum registration lifetime that it is willing to offer to a requester. A requester SHOULD NOT request registration with lifetime greater than the maximum registration lifetime or smaller than the minimum registration lifetime. is a SHOULD NOT - why would a requester choose to disregard the SHOULD and send a request registration with (for example) a lifetime greater than the maximum registration lifetime? Is the intention for the requester to allow this, and then (for example) cap the lifetime at the maximum registration lifetime? Or is something else supposed to happen? Whatever the intention is, it might be helpful to provide an explanation about that.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for handling my discuss point.
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection