Re: [hiprg] RG last call on the DHT draft

[Ari Keranen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Here's some more comments on the rest of the DHT draft.


4. HDRR - the HIP DHT Resource Record

    The only other TLV used with the HIT lookup service is an optional
    CERT parameter containing a certificate for validating the name that
    is used as the DHT key.

Missing a reference to the CERT draft.


    The HOST_ID parameter and HIP_SIGNATURE parameter MUST be used with
    the HDRR so that HIP clients receiving the record can validate the
    sender and the included LOCATOR parameter.
[...]
    The client that receives the HDRR from the DHT response MUST perform
    the signature and HIT_KEY verification.

More instances of RFC 2119 language.


5. Use cases

    Also, when there is a change in
    preferred address, usually associated with sending UPDATE packets
    with included locator parameters, the host should update its HDRR
    with the DHT.  The old HDRR should be removed using the rm operation,
    if a secret value was used in the put.

If a secret value was not used, shouldn't the old HDRR be still removed?


    Addresses from the private address space should not be published to
    the DHT.  If the host is located behind a NAT, for example, the host
    could publish the address of its RVS to the DHT if that is how it is
    reachable.

Abbreviations are not expanded (RVS, and perhaps NAT too) and missing a 
reference to the RVS RFC. Since we're talking about NATs, could also 
mention HIP relay and RFC 5770.


Cheers,
Ari