[Hipsec] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19
Will LIU <liushucheng@huawei.com> Thu, 10 May 2018 09:16 UTC
Return-Path: <liushucheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C9412D947; Thu, 10 May 2018 02:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Will LIU <liushucheng@huawei.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis.all@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152594381959.10451.9615415806066075335@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 02:16:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/QXFwsuAdZwDqZRNgBm2fvQt5KWg>
Subject: [Hipsec] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 09:16:59 -0000
Reviewer: Will LIU Review result: Ready Hi all, (Sorry , it seems to me that the notification was blocked by the filter. I guess it's a little bit late.) I have reviewed draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. “This memo describes a new namespace, the Host Identity namespace, and a new protocol layer, the Host Identity Protocol, between the internetworking and transport layers. Herein are presented the basics of the current namespaces, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a new namespace will add completeness to them. The roles of this new namespace in the protocols are defined. This document obsoletes RFC 4423 and addresses the concerns raised by the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility. It incorporates lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201 and goes further to explain how HIP works as a secure signaling channel.” My overall view of the document is 'Ready' for publication. Some small ones: 1. Especially, I am glad to see the security consideration part well explained. I guess it's still worth writing something about the security tradeoff influence for the different modes mentioned in previous sections. In fact, there are some words in previous sections, maybe a summary can be put here. 2. It's good to have a single subsection about " Answers to NSRG questions". However, maybe it's better to put it in appendix? Regards, Will (Shucheng LIU)
- [Hipsec] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-hi… Will LIU
- Re: [Hipsec] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Opsdir last call review of draft-iet… Liushucheng (Will Liu)