Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-23

Miika,
I reviewed your changes, and sent you some typos / editorial nits.

Here are some further comments:

Section 4.9

"It SHOULD wait for all of them to respond for two minutes"

Where does this value come from?
Should this be a configurable time, default two minutes?

It seems like a long time in the context of address mobility, which you want to complete as soon as possible. Then again, on a high-latency network or overloaded server, maybe we need to wait longer.

Section 4.12.3

"but could occur on a busy server acting as a Responder"

What does this mean, acting as a Responder? Should this read "acting as a Relay"?

“The same applies also the handover
   procedures; the Data Relay Client MUST NOT include the relayed
   address candidate when sending its new locator set in an UPDATE to
   its peer if it would cause a SPI conflict with another peer.”

Is it possible then to have no valid locators here, due to the SPI collision? What will happen then?

regards,
-Jeff

On 11/22/17, 3:21 AM, "Hipsec on behalf of Gonzalo Camarillo" <hipsec-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:

    Folks,

    we already WGLCed version 15 of this draft back in February. Miika has
    addressed a few comments since then. I would like to start a second WGLC
    on the the draft to make sure it is ready for publication request. This
    WGLC will end on December 7th:

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/

    Thanks,

    Gonzalo

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