Re: [Hipsec] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27

"Roni Even (A)" <> Sun, 04 March 2018 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51F7126FDC; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.231
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tN8FI_4BuYlT; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F8791241F5; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7BE8D2B0A58CA; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 07:23:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 07:23:07 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 15:22:59 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <>
To: Miika Komu <>, Roni Even <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
Thread-Index: AQHTsWd46nuHzli77kintpr2h56DIaO/rmhQ
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:22:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:23:12 -0000

Hi Miika,
 All your responses are OK with me.

As for posting a new version, I think it will be good to submit one with all the changes that came in the IETF LC


-----Original Message-----
From: Gen-art [] On Behalf Of Miika Komu
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 4:13 PM
To: Roni Even;
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27

Hi Roni,

thanks for the detailed review! My comments are below.

On 02/26/2018 03:21 PM, Roni Even wrote:
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Almost Ready
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by 
> the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like 
> any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2018-02-26
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> Summary:
> The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC
> Major issues:
> Minor issues:
> 1. in section 4.2 "Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed by 
> other means than described in this section.  For example, the candidates could be
>     gathered as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC5770] if STUN servers are
>     available, or if the host has just a single interface and no STUN orData
>     Relay Server are available." I did not see this a different ways since
>     section 3 says "The hosts use either Control Relay Servers or Data Relay
>     Servers (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers) for
>     gathering the candidates." so STUN is mentioned also here.

I suggest to remove the remark in parenthesis (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers). Does this solve the issue?

[Roni] Yes

> 2. In section 4.6.2 "The connectivity check messages MUST be paced by 
> the Ta value negotiated during the base exchange as described in 
> Section 4.4.  If neither one of the hosts announced a minimum pacing 
> value, a value of  20 ms SHOULD be used." in section 4.4 the default value is 50 ms?

Good catch! I double checked this from the ICE spec, which defaults also to 50 ms. So, I change the value to 50 ms also in section 4.6.2.
[Roni] OK

> 3. in section 5.4 what about "ICE-STUN-UDP         2" ;  I assume it is not
> relevant but this is also the IANA registeration

I think it makes sense to add the missing one as you suggest, but omit it from the IANA registration since it is already registered for RFC5770.
[Roni] OK

> 4. In section 5.5 "The TRANSACTION_PACING is a new parameter" it is 
> not new it is in RFC5770

You're right, I'll change this.

> is the only new one. this also relates to section 7 that says that all 
> error values in section 5.10 are new while the rest are in RFC5770. 
> Also there is no mention in section 7 of which registry is used for the error values.

Good catch, I'll correct these and add the IANA registry.


> Nits/editorial comments:
> 1. Expand SPI and LSI when first appear in the document
> 2. in section 2 "the base of an candidate" should be "a candidate"
> 3. In section 3 "so it is the Initiator may also have registered to a 
> Control and/or Data Relay Server" maybe "so  the Initiator may also 
> need to register to a Control and/or Data Relay Server"
> 4. In section 4.2 "However, it is RECOMMENDED that a Data Relay Client 
> registers a new server reflexive candidate for each its peer for the 
> reasons described" maybe "for each of its..."

Thanks for spotting these, will fix as suggested.

> 5. In section 4.2 I could not parse the sentence "where Ta is the 
> value used for Ta is the value used for the"

Should be "where Ta is the value used for the"...

> 6. in section 4.6 "as defined in section in 6.7 in [RFC7401]:"  change 
> to "as defined in section 6.7 in [RFC7401]:"

Will fix this too.

Should I post a new version with the suggested changes?

Gen-art mailing list