Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Christer Holmberg <> Sun, 06 May 2018 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B96A12D7F0 for <>; Sun, 6 May 2018 12:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6xYkFg3vZIIb for <>; Sun, 6 May 2018 12:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3B4E12D778 for <>; Sun, 6 May 2018 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt;; t=1525633543; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=TpPQVDmzNOxv/rI+W/iarPuk4lBmMs0MvUNI3vDYFsc=; b=Z1Pg/zI0rZ3qHxnUYp04WK72cU0E6FHxA+/R7PmhUXKspIIYlPsvGsBtzbV91lMA NUSoc24QcfWEBzl1QvwlLFe/T3u31+bTP2EjubGr9G8P5pxz5SNjMX2g1Nb3nSAP jOlGsLZ1Cco2dqJhVIy26q1G6FbKWNvglIOuXvpVRG8=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-112a09c00000729c-75-5aef52066797
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A6.E9.29340.6025FEA5; Sun, 6 May 2018 21:05:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Sun, 6 May 2018 21:05:42 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
CC: The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHT497tPndaPbfR0EuvRo85uzt3DKQi880Q///8FICAACLV2g==
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 19:05:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_71503CBDB8524D4B8691E16356EA9738ericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7hC570Psog00dvBbtazqYLVa8Psdu caS1i91i6qLJzBYz/kxkdmD1WLLkJ5PH5MdtzAFMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZc/rvMBc8la84 0vyBqYFxulQXIyeHhICJxLzDMxm7GLk4hASOMEqcbnzJDuEsYpQ4s/oNSxcjBwebgIVE9z9t kAYRAQWJX39OsIDUMAtcZpRo3buJBSQhLFAq8ePPZjaIojKJX79PsELYThLNz9Yyg9gsAioS L/f/B4vzCthLrN5xjwli2XVGiVk7noIVcQoESnQuaAezGQXEJL6fWsMEYjMLiEvcejKfCeJs AYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OFqEmW6L/dwQKxQFDi5MwnLBMYhWchaZ+FpGwWkjKIuI7Egt2f2CBs bYllC18zw9hnDjxmQhZfwMi+ilG0OLW4ODfdyEgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwwg5u+W21g/Hg c8dDjAIcjEo8vPeV30cJsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuHdbg4U4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIk zuuUZhElJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYKzYwKnX7tdjNC/FebpyDlvmzvUfVgu1XPmzhPdl zWstFU7+OC6vqvhPy9fdSU9/FOYg9nd/FO8OzrCl/GGf+b2vmGy/nV99kXVu7eHuO7PXh2i7 5k1tzmSXT608kiERpyD6rTGkx4vB//7qr50T7j5+NGU5w9XTupyHJ4bpzt3GtH2z1k7Wo0os xRmJhlrMRcWJAKwvTJusAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 19:05:49 -0000


The question is whether this document should re-define the HIP variations to ICE that RFC 5770 already does.



Sent from my iPhone

On 6 May 2018, at 22.01, Eric Rescorla <<>> wrote:

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Christer Holmberg <<>> wrote:

> I am very familiar with ICE and yet I found this document extremely hard to follow. The problem is that it cherry-picks pieces
> of ICE and I'm just not sure that it's a complete specification when put all together. I have noted a number of places where I
> actually am not sure how to implement something, and fixing those will resolve this DISCUSS, but IMO you really should totally
> rewrite this document either (a) as a variant of ICE or (b) as an entirely new document not with a pile of new text and then
> references out to ICE sections.

I haven't been involved in the work on this draft, so I may be wrong, but I did review the document and my understanding is that RFC 5770 is the "variant of ICE", and this document is a modification/extension to RFC 5770.

This document is a variant of ICE in the sense that it is ICE-like and explicitly depends on quite a bit of ICE.