Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-03.txt

Hi Ari,

Thanks for pointing out the typo! I have just submitted the draft.

Best,

--julien

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Ari Keranen
<ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com> wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> Looks good, thanks. One small typo in section 6: "potetially unknown hosts".
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ari
>
>
> On 21/02/14 07:04, Julien Laganier wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ari,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the draft and suggesting improvements. I have
>> incorporated them all in the version-to-be -05, unfortunately the
>> deadline has passed so I am attaching it below for your (and the rest
>> of the WG) review in case you spot some errors before submission
>> reopens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --julien
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Julien,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/17/14 5:50 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ari,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ari Keranen
>>>> <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Julien,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, that looks good to me. Although reading the draft again, I was
>>>>> wondering is it missing some text regarding the "Insufficient
>>>>> resources"
>>>>> error?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... a registration failing because of "insufficient resources" is
>>>> quite explicit; it conveys enough information for a  requester to know
>>>> that there are no resources to create a registration at a given
>>>> registrar. Presumably a requester would try to register at a different
>>>> registrar if it knows one...
>>>>
>>>> What else would the requester need to know?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I mean that it looks a bit strange that there's only an error code
>>> defined
>>> but no text at all when to use it (even if the name of the code kinda
>>> gives
>>> it away). I would recommend to add a sentence or two about when/how to
>>> use
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I spotted one (copy-paste) error in the draft, section 3.3:
>>>
>>>     If the registrar knows the Host Identities (HIs) of all the hosts
>>>     that are allowed to use the relaying service, it SHOULD reject
>>>     registrations from unknown hosts.  However, since it may be
>>>     unfeasible to pre-configure the relay with all the HIs, the relay
>>>     SHOULD also support HIP certificates [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis] to
>>>     allow for certificate based authentication.
>>>
>>> This should no longer be "relaying service" and "relay" (2 instances
>>> here)
>>> but in general the service for which one is registering for.
>>>
>>> In the figures, at the end of the section, I was wondering why S3 is not
>>> announced by the registrar? Also the text is a bit unclear; almost as if
>>> RQ
>>> would try to register for S1 and S2 even if the figure shows only S1.
>>>
>>> In section "4.5. REG_FAILED", it says "Failure types other than zero (0)
>>> and
>>> one (1) have not been defined." This is obviously not true anymore.
>>> Perhaps
>>> here would be a good place for some text on the insufficient resources
>>> error
>>> code.
>>>
>>> And by the way, I guess you can have more than one REG_FAILEDs if there
>>> was
>>> more than one failure type? The text seems to now imply only single
>>> REG_FAILED.
>>>
>>> Section 6 says:
>>>
>>>     Registrars act on a voluntary basis and are willing to accept being a
>>>     responder and then to create HIP associations with a number of
>>>     previously unknown hosts.
>>>
>>> Now with the HI/cert authentication this has actually improved (you only
>>> potentially do things with previously unknown hosts).
>>>
>>> Otherwise I think the draft is in good shape and could move forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ari
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec