Re: [Hipsec] Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 2010-06-11

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ari.keranen@ericsson.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 24F7E3A686E; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.095, BAYES_05=-1.11, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 T1ZZaQvVjMQ3; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662513A67A5; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b80ae000001aa1-dd-4c172bf4af40
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 60.1F.06817.4FB271C4; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:29:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:29:55 +0200
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:29:55 +0200
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D6A25A8; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:29:55 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4C172BF2.20500@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:29:54 +0300
From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
References: <B83FC4F8B97A429294ED703EB1F3CF94@china.huawei.com> <4C12427A.6010509@bwijnen.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C12427A.6010509@bwijnen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2010 07:29:55.0761 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D50FA10:01CB0C5C]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 2010-06-11
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: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:30:17 -0000

Hi Bert,

Thanks for the review! Comments inline.

On 06/11/2010 05:04 PM, Bert (IETF) Wijnen wrote:
> The document describes 2 extensions to the HIP protocol and adds
> one notification. I think the document is clear in terms of protocol spec.
> W.r.t. if/how/when to use these extensions it states:
> 
> 3. Protocol Definitions
> 
> The multi-hop routing extensions may be used in different contexts
> and whether a new HIP packet should, for example, include a Via list
> or have different options enabled, can depend on the particular use
> case, local policies, and different protocols using the extension.
> This section defines how the new parameters are handled, but when to
> use these extensions is out of scope for this document.
> 
> So it leaves that up to another document. Is there such a document?
> Such would be (in my view) operational aspects. But they are claimed
> to be out of scope. I leave it up to our OPS ADs to decide if that
> is problematic or not.

There is currently one draft (draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-01) that 
uses this extension and defines in which cases the extension should be 
used. We believe that the Via extension can be useful in many contexts 
and therefore did not want to restrict its use cases too much but rather 
let the drafts using the extension define when and how to use the extension.


Cheers,
Ari