[Hipsec] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given this document’s dependency on concepts and terminology from 5770, I think
that document has to be a normative reference.  Can someone really understand
and implement this without any reference to 5770?

— Abstract —

   The main
   difference from the previously specified modes is the use of HIP
   messages instead of ICE for all NAT traversal procedures due to its
   kernel-space dependencies.

The antecedent to “its” is unclear: it could be “use of HIP messages”, or
“ICE”, or “NAT traversal”.  Please rephrase to clarify.

— Section 1 —

   Also, especially NATs usually require the
   host behind a NAT to create a forwarding state in the NAT before
   other hosts outside of the NAT can contact the

What does “especially” mean in this sentence?  It doesn’t make sense to me. 
Does it add anything?

   which will be referred as "Legacy ICE-HIP" in this document.

Nit: “referred to”

   HIP poses a unique challenge to using standard ICE, due not only to
   its kernel-space implementation, but also due to its close

Same comment about “its” as in the abstract: please replace “its” with what
you’re talking about, as it isn’t clear.