Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julien,

when do you think you will get around to revising the draft per Tom's
comments? As you know, the plan is to request the publication of the
drafts in the next batch together.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 06/05/2015 2:02 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Thanks for the review Tom, we will address your WGLC comments ASAP.
> 
> --julien
> 
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Thanks for this review as well, Tom.
>>
>> Julien, Lars, could you please address Tom's comments in a new revision
>> of the draft?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 05/05/2015 2:02 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end
>>>> on May 4th:
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/
>>>>
>>>> Please, send your comments to this list.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here are a few questions/comments on this draft.
>>>
>>> Technical
>>> ---------
>>> Section 4.3.3 (including VIA_RVS) seems to conflict with 4.2.3 (VIA_RVS
>>> parameter definition).  Section 4.3.3 states that VIA_RVS is mandatory
>>> if the I1 arrived via a RVS, but 4.2.3 says that the responder MAY
>>> choose to send it for debugging purposes.
>>>
>>> Another point regarding Section 4.2.3:  it states that the responder may
>>> include "a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of the
>>> packets."  What use cases are there for including more than a single RVS
>>> address (the one that was used)?   Would more than one RVS ever need to
>>> be traversed between initiator and responder?  I don't think the draft
>>> supports such security relationships, so perhaps it would be best to
>>> explicitly say it is out of scope.
>>>
>>> Editorial
>>> ----------
>>> Section 6 (IANA) needs to be updated to request the new action items of
>>> IANA, not the ones previously asked when 5204 was published.
>>> Accordingly, IANA is not assigning new Parameter Types but instead this
>>> draft should request that IANA update the reference for these three
>>> types from 5204 to this document.  The same holds for the Registration
>>> Type value.
>>>
>>> - Tom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>