IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis-04 review

Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com> Wed, 16 March 2011 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E263A67ED for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 05:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T+wgwI4BCSOT for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 05:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FA93A67EB for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 05:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494AA4E6D8 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:13:31 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com
Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ahV9cbw8Ts-9 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:13:30 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60B94E662 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:13:30 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
In-Reply-To: <B3E13881-1543-447B-B011-D5394EF086BB@nomadiclab.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:13:30 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B99C38E9-41CF-4937-B01A-533615522F26@nomadiclab.com>
References: <B3E13881-1543-447B-B011-D5394EF086BB@nomadiclab.com>
To: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis-04 review
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:12:08 -0000

One more review comment that originally ended up in the nits but probably deserves wider consideration:


5.3.3.  I2 - the Second HIP Initiator Packet

   The Initiator MAY include an unmodified copy of the R1_COUNTER
   parameter received in the corresponding R1 packet into the I2 packet.


Why is this only MAY? Wouldn't it make sense to have this as MUST (or at least SHOULD) if the Responder added the R1_COUNTER?


Cheers,
Ari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email