Re: [Hipsec] Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 2010-06-11

["Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your answer. I leave it up to the OPS ADs to decide if this is 
acceptable.

Bert
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ari Keränen" <[e-mail]>
To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Gonzalo Camarillo" <[e-mail]>; "Romascanu, Dan 
(Dan)" <[e-mail]>; "Ron Bonica" <[e-mail]>; 
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 
2010-06-11


Hi Bert,

Thanks for the review! Comments inline.

On 06/11/2010 05:04 PM, Bert (IETF) Wijnen wrote:
> The document describes 2 extensions to the HIP protocol and adds
> one notification. I think the document is clear in terms of protocol spec.
> W.r.t. if/how/when to use these extensions it states:
>
> 3. Protocol Definitions
>
> The multi-hop routing extensions may be used in different contexts
> and whether a new HIP packet should, for example, include a Via list
> or have different options enabled, can depend on the particular use
> case, local policies, and different protocols using the extension.
> This section defines how the new parameters are handled, but when to
> use these extensions is out of scope for this document.
>
> So it leaves that up to another document. Is there such a document?
> Such would be (in my view) operational aspects. But they are claimed
> to be out of scope. I leave it up to our OPS ADs to decide if that
> is problematic or not.

There is currently one draft (draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-01) that
uses this extension and defines in which cases the extension should be
used. We believe that the Via extension can be useful in many contexts
and therefore did not want to restrict its use cases too much but rather
let the drafts using the extension define when and how to use the extension.


Cheers,
Ari