[Hipsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 24 February 2020 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2802A3A0EDB; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:15:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal@ietf.org, hip-chairs@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.118.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <158256455409.5317.3970484745957517223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:15:54 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/hPdGe5EWoU9Ik9orLSphJ3LUA4g>
Subject: [Hipsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:15:54 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks to the authors for taking some of the concerns I laid out in my original
ballot into account. I still do not believe this approach is good for HIP's
benefit, but am no longer worried about collateral damage from other protocols
imitating this approach. Accordingly, I am balloting "No Objection."

There is one remaining comment from my initial review that I think can and
should be addressed prior to publication:

Appendix B:

>  o  Unlike in ICE, the addresses are not XOR-ed in Native ICE-HIP
>     protocol in order to avoid middlebox tampering.

This bullet should explain why such obfuscation is unnecessary.