Re: [Hipsec] Base draft & ESP draft: snapshots

>> There appears to be a minor problem between 6.13 and 6.14.  6.13 says
>> that CLOSE may be answered with an ICMP, 6.14 that they are dropped.
>>
>
> Actually, there is a whole section "5.4.4  Non-existing HIP  
> Association"
> that discusses about responding to CLOSE and NOTIFY messages with an
> ICMP if we do not have any state with that peer. In Paris, I think we
> agreed that we are not going to respond to an incoming CLOSE with any
> message. Should we ignore also incoming NOTIFYs if there is no
> association? Is there any reason why we would like to answer to  
> NOTIFYs
> in UNASSOCIATED state?

Good question.  I don't have any strong opinion; I'm just worried about
us not being consistent.

>> Need to specify "LSI" briefly in Section 2 as it is used in 6.1
>>
>
> Should we remove all text related to LSIs, and concentrate only on  
> HITs
> in this draft? All LSI related stuff would be in
> draft-henderson-hip-applications.

Either way works for me.  I'd slightly prefer rewriting 6.1. and
6.2 so that they don't refer to LSIs as all, because IMHO those
two sections should be completely rewritten anyway.   They are
currently crumby, as a remaining issue resulting from the document
split.

--Pekka

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec