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

[Tom Henderson <[e-mail]>]

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 ...

 >
 > 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.

Please let us know if you have concerns with the above.

- Tom