Re: [Hipsec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

At 09:04 28-05-2014, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
>to consider the following document:
>- 'An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers
>    Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)'
>   <draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[e-mail] mailing lists by 2014-06-11. Exceptionally, comments may be

I took a quick look at the draft.

In Section 1.1:

   "While being technically possible to use ORCHIDs between consenting
    hosts without any co-ordination with the IETF and the IANA, the
    authors would consider such practice potentially dangerous."

The document is intended as an IETF RFC.  I suggest framing the about 
from an IETF perspective instead of the authors' perspective.

   "A specific danger would be realised if the IETF community later
    decided to use the ORCHID prefix for some different purpose.  In
    that case, hosts using the ORCHID prefix would be, for practical
    purposes, unable to use the prefix for the other new purpose."

My reading of the above is that the working group is trying to make a 
case for some free IPv6 addresses.  According to the sixth paragraph 
in that section ORCHIDs are about allowing people to experiment.  The 
question that arises is why is an intended Proposed Standard being 
used to describe an experiment.  I don't understand the "danger" 
argument.  Is the ORCHID request for an experiment or for a prefix to 
be set aside for people using the technology?

In Section 3:

   "Router software MUST NOT include any special handling code for
    ORCHIDs.  In other words, the non-routability property of ORCHIDs, if
    implemented, MUST be implemented via configuration and NOT by
    hardwired software code.  At this time, it is RECOMMENDED that the
    default router configuration not handle ORCHIDs in any special way.
    In other words, there is no need to touch existing or new routers due
    to ORCHIDs.  If such a reason should later appear, for example, due
    to a faulty implementation leaking ORCHIDs to the IP layer, the
    prefix can be and should be blocked by a simple configuration rule."

There is, in my opinion, excessive usage of RFC 2119 key words in the 
above.  I suggest using RFC 2119 key words for the main points.

The IANA Considerations in Section 6 could do with a few 
changes.  Please see RFC 6890 for the information requirements for 
having a reservation in the IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry.

The termination date for the ORCHID assignment is March 2014.  It may 
be easier to note the fact that the experiment has ended instead of 
saying that the prefix is to be returned to IANA in 2014.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy