Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I've been thinking a bit more about the update of RFC5204 / Rendezvous
Server support. See below:

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julien Laganier <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [...]
> - 5204bis (rendezvous) needs one more subsection regarding relaying of
> the UPDATE packet to support double jump of mobile nodes. As this
> isn't really useful without the mobility support my proposal is to
> tackle this one together with the 5206bis.

I figured two things:

1- relaying an UPDATE packet is pointless in the absence of HIP
mobility support on both endpoints.

2- support for rendezvous server is useful independently of support
for HIP mobility.

Taking both 1. and 2. into account, my conclusion is that it makes
sense to keep the rendezvous server support self-contained in 5203bis,
i.e., without a normative dependency to the mobility support in
5206bis, while 5206 would specify an extension to rendezvous mechanism
for support of relaying UPDATE packets.

Makes sense?

--julien