Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-api-06

[Miika Komu <[e-mail]>]

Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:

Hi,

>>> You might reference ORCHIDs earlier on (maybe second or 
>> third paragraph
>>> of introduction) as the first time they appear in this 
>> draft is section
>>> 4.2.
>> Done.
> 
> OK, in the new ORCHID text, you might use "derived" instead of
> "derivated".

thanks. This will appear in the next version.

>> I agree that the HIT vs. ORCHID usage was confusing. I replaced all 
>> orchid names with HITs in order to unify the naming scheme in 
>> the API. 
>> Is it ok now?
> 
> yes, I think it is clearer now
> 
>>> but then Section 4.1 Page 6, 2nd paragraph talks about using PF_HIP
>>> "The use of the PF_HIP constant" ...
>> I rephrased this, please check if it is ok now.
> 
> looks good
> 
>>> typedef struct in6_addr orchid_t; typedef orchid_t hip_hit_t;
>> I am not sure what to do about it because I decided to unify the 
>> constants just to use always "hit".
> 
> yes now all the constants use "hit" so the "orchid" name is not needed

Ok, thanks.