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

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 02/21/2011 10:49 AM, Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:
>>> - 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.

What for draft 02 and changes to sec 2.2 for this.

>>> 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...

I have not made any changes here.  Review draft 02 when it is out and 
think about changes.

>>> "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."
> ?

Change made, please review.

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