Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01

["Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[e-mail]>]

> > - the table of terms in Section 2.2 could refer to
> >    RFC 5201 under definition of base exchange
> 
> Not sure what you would want here.  Can you offer up some text?

The first occurrence of "HIP base exchange" and the table refer to Section 7. If Section 7 refers to RFC 5201 that is probably enough, and/or in the table in 2.2 you could have a "see [RFC5201]". As long as 5201 is referenced somewhere that seems fine.

> > Section 6.2 last paragraph discusses skipping the address check;
> > CBA can also be used to reduce handover latency here?
> 
> CBA?

credit-based authentication

Maybe this lost its steam? Was it ever implemented?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vogt-hip-credit-based-authorization-00

I wouldn't reference CBA if there is no WG interest...

> > "There was little if any concrete thoughts about how HIP might affect
> >   IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
> > This sentence made sense in conjunction with the RFC 4423 abstract:
> > "The memo describes the thinking of the authors as of Fall 2003."
> > ...but without such text that sentence on multicast doesn't really
> > stand on its own.
> 
> What would you suggest?

maybe:
"There has not been much work in describing how HIP might affect
IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
or:
"Few concrete thoughts exist about how HIP might affect
IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
?

Just trying to reduce the dependency on: "[As of Fall 2003] there was little if any..."

-Jeff