Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julien,

same question about this draft. When do you intend to revise it?

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 06/05/2015 2:09 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Thanks for the review Tom, I will address your WGLC comments ASAP.
> 
> --julien
> 
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Thanks for the review, Tom.
>>
>> Julien, could you please look into Tom's comments and address them in a
>> new revision of the draft?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end
>>>> on May 4th:
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/
>>>>
>>>> Please, send your comments to this list.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>> I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments.
>>>
>>> (possibly) technical
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but
>>> this document only mentions ECDSA.  For alignment with RFC 7401, I
>>> suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as
>>> appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same codepoint).
>>>
>>> I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any?  If
>>> there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records
>>> may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly
>>> reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records).
>>>
>>> The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a
>>> host wants to register more than one host identity.  I suggest something
>>> along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a
>>> single name.  It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a
>>> host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned.
>>> The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or
>>> may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is
>>> associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present."
>>>
>>> editorial
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we
>>> are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code
>>> should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification."  and "this
>>> document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and
>>> ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR."
>>>
>>> Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with
>>> "degenerate".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>