Re: [Hipsec] your DISCUSS comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

On 7/22/14 2:51 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> You left the following DISCUSS comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis
> which I would like to address below:
> 
>> I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I do
>> have two small points to discuss in section 5.2.3.
>>
>> 1. The R1_COUNTER parameter was labeled as optional in RFC 5201, but
>> made mandatory in this revision.  However, the text says it SHOULD be
>> included in R1.  If it is not included in R1 (violates the SHOULD),
>> where will it be included given it is mandatory?
> 
> Support for it is mandatory (if the Responder sends it, the Initiator
> must echo it back), but the inclusion by the responder is optional.
> 
> To try to clarify this, I edited it (for version -15) to read:
> 
>            Support for the R1_COUNTER parameter is mandatory although
>            its inclusion in the R1 packet is optional.  It SHOULD be
>            included in the R1 ...
> 

The above is fine.  If this parameter is sent by the Responder, what
packets could it be sent in (i.e., violate the SHOULD) and still be useful?

The above question is just something for you to think about.  I will not
hold a discuss on it.

>>
>> 2. The Type value of R1_COUNTER was 128 in 5201 and is now 129.  Is
>> that correct?
> 
> Yes, by making its support mandatory, it is now deemed a "critical"
> parameter and the LSB of the type value must be 1.  This necessitated
> the change from 128 to 129.
> 

Is there a need to discuss any backwards compatibility issues with this
change?

Brian