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

Gonzalo Camarillo <> Sat, 13 February 2016 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A4D1B30B1 for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lkClezWNzENh for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402AA1B30AF for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:56:45 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-67-56bf0bea63fd
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B3.8E.28465.AEB0FB65; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:56:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:56:42 +0100
To: Tom Henderson <>, HIP <>
References: <>
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:56:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7qO4r7v1hBkffWlpMXTSZ2WLm+YNs DkweS5b8ZPJouR4TwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlbHh6D/2gi88Fde2v2NvYNzK1cXIySEhYCKx 4vZyJghbTOLCvfVsILaQwGFGiQePyroYuYDsNYwSfxcsAisSFrCXOLnvFnsXIweHiICzxNWL IhD1nhIvV9xmBrHZBCwktty6zwJi8wpoS3ScnAFmswioSjy/08MKYosKxEhc7DzCBFEjKHFy 5hOwGk4BL4nXB56AxZkFDCSOLJrDCmHLS2x/O4cZYpe2xPJnLSwTGAVmIWmfhaRlFpKWBYzM qxhFi1OLi3PTjYz1Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECQ/Lglt+6OxhXv3Y8xCjAwajEw7tBe1+YEGti WXFl7iFGCQ5mJRFenXtAId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4rxrnNeHCQmkJ5akZqemFqQW wWSZODilGhgtRTmKp58VrXN1+9c4vfXDt3kHX66anMyw7NpkY2uGPLl9BfJ1xdyrM02n382a suFeQd/N5yvDA68kJzdPv5lWpvBl76reAzM+qC6fOLv9GMeKvkCLB+Hf8rZlfT+m8uzqjD1z 97t0LH3luE7z92r7ZaXe26SmxJosqVl80rzcI7r77vX2X3/vK7EUZyQaajEXFScCAE8kT6xF AgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:56:47 -0000


I am resending Tom's comments to the list since he seems to have failed
to cc: the list on his email below. Thanks for your comments, Tom!



On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 02:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end
>> on February 12th:
>> Please, send your comments to this list. 
> Gonzalo and all,
> My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version.
> I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference in Section 8.1.  It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still applicable from RFC5770.  For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode still valid?
> ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me that it should also be informative in this draft.
> I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to avoid referencing 5770 from then on. 
> - Tom