Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal

Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> Wed, 29 June 2016 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FE812D5A1 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fYJR4quj355S for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A64F12D623 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79936d0000030e4-04-5774144b80a5
Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.51]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id ED.85.12516.B4414775; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:32:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [100.94.2.57] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.294.0; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:32:43 +0200
To: <hipsec@ietf.org>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1602230608110.18671@hymn04.u.washington.edu> <56CDBDA1.7050207@ericsson.com> <3CEE85EA-C996-4B28-B0A3-DA8B158BD159@temperednetworks.com> <56D1630A.7000209@ericsson.com> <56D45895.2060503@ericsson.com> <56DD757B.8050002@ericsson.com> <20160328235106.GA79648@cowbell.employees.org>
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Message-ID: <5774144A.6020103@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:32:42 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160328235106.GA79648@cowbell.employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms030603050708090301030601"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7sa63SEm4wY4pmhZTF01mdmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxpuuV+wFaxwq1l+8wtTA2GndxcjBISFgIrGuO7qLkRPIFJO4 cG89WxcjF4eQwBFGiccT7rFAOCsZJTae28wIUiUsYC9xct8tdhBbREBUYsqH08wQRfuYJHq+ f2cBSbAJaEmsunOdGcTmF5CU2NCwG8zmFdCWOPR4OhuIzSKgKvGn5ToriC0qECExa/sPJoga QYmTM5+AzeEUsJa4/qqDEWQBs0A3o8SddbdZQM4WElCRuHgseAKjwCwkLbOQlYEkmAVsJe7M 3c0MYWtLLFv4Gsq2lpjx6yAbhK0oMaX7ITuEbSrx+uhHRgjbWGLZur9sCxg5VjGKFqcWF+em GxnrpRZlJhcX5+fp5aWWbGIEhv/BLb91dzCufu14iFGAg1GJh3cBT0m4EGtiWXFl7iFGFaA5 jzasvsAoxZKXn5eqJMIrzwWU5k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzuv/UjFcSCA9sSQ1OzW1 ILUIJsvEwSnVwNidNv9hxaem9vzwqKm6X7jEuKacWZt2N3FCsEGebFpl6Clev6zJEXyi+08t irFXFi4SUFs4Z4v1zkcZIcyTghWYJ/Ewp27QuCegbT5P6FjuSd5Wh3MHSlcG2r19f5T74PLQ c2zewTvanew37Zlp6L60T01hj0lwSPjb75KCNu+Sn788XXOtTomlOCPRUIu5qDgRAFuGF86H AgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/1hXsBQtLI3Ybl4e0lS4JuUyOuu0>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:32:54 -0000

Hi Derek,

On 03/29/2016 02:51 AM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 02:35:07pm +0200, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> First he will look into adding clarifications to the existing draft
>> while still referencing the old RFC. If the group is not happy with the
>> readability after the editorial pass (or our AD does not finally let us
>> downref the old RFC), we can consider bringing material from the old RFC
>> directly into the new one.
>
> Sorry,  that I'm quite late in looking at these,  but have been doing
> so recently...
>
> I have to say that I find the it difficult to decode simply because
> of having to refer to 3 (the draft, 5770, 5245) plus possibly the
> STUN/TURN docs at once.
>
> I'd certainly find it easier to comprehend if the text from 5770 was
> incorporated (suitably modified to account for not doing STUN/TURN)
> within the draft.  That way the references to the significant pieces
> of 5245 text would be easier to nail down.

done!

> As it is,  I currently find it a bit like reading an Act of Parliament!
>
> e.g. $3.8 Connectivity Checks
>     refers to $4.6 of 5770 with some exceptions, $4.6 of 5770 refers to
> $5.7 of 5245 and $7 of 5245,  where the exceptions (use of UPDATE instead
> of STUN) have to be applied to that $7 referencing 5389,  so possibly
> I don't have to read 5389, since hopefully it would just be packet formats.
>
>> I would also like the group to comment on the following two proposals:
>>
>> 1) the draft will allow implementers to use HIP native relays only. In
>> addition, the use of STUN and TURN relays will be optional.
>
> I'd suggest the draft be native only,  but say with an appendix referencing
> 5770 for use of STUN/TURN,  maybe indicating which bits of the 5770
> to take heed of.

STUN is now optional, but just for determining the host's owns address 
candidates. Data relay must be used instead of TURN.

>> 2) in addition to covering the base exchange, the draft will also cover
>> the mobility readdressing exchange.
>
> Not having read that recently,  I can't really comment.

The mobility is now covered.