Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 May 2015 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318971B2AB4 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cW8wnoNdsmAY for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x235.google.com (mail-yk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA8081B2AA2 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykft189 with SMTP id t189so47431136ykf.1 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2rSje0t7PTrxEgB50OmmX092XC57SeAvuUpvnCbVR14=; b=oY0VFWWvwpyacVYu0H3rTCpNumxBRh69F/jjEkb8oq94KpxAWtgBLHR0uRzPzrmE51 NmX7qKvtD8PzhjJPkIEquU48mV9f4GNTyJY6QNXv261CEzRCks+VDBXifetuoRRO2CEw +yWx2kJT6JPMfkvLqu2lW7Pj8V5yBiKOldDuijH0f80f7qwf9MVRXSqLM+FOxFBkwFsb vtE3+robT7S4kRuISfct3KX5/wAXGCg5LdmGTe0Fbwafz7Z7Pb9OtRCiVZvcjD8YvqAM GCgMxDevnm+osI7OaA2IyEhIYtbvBrZEEzaQNClcKssYcxlYBhJTWOLGA0qPBTPAYlTl nu2A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.218.86 with SMTP id k83mr26561282ykf.6.1430870568198; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com>
References: <5530E4A8.70300@ericsson.com> <5547FA8B.9000907@tomh.org> <5548CD40.2040709@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:02:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhju=+ViW5Ltm=On+RWEV3pLwUrw4b5b_wYfeP-qaMXOO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/jT47S5lp2gUfStA3bnH6XIBBUaU>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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/options/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: Wed, 06 May 2015 00:03:18 -0000

Thanks for the review Tom, we will address your WGLC comments ASAP.

--julien

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
<Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Thanks for this review as well, Tom.
>
> Julien, Lars, could you please address Tom's comments in a new revision
> of the draft?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 05/05/2015 2:02 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end
>>> on May 4th:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/
>>>
>>> Please, send your comments to this list.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>
>>
>> Here are a few questions/comments on this draft.
>>
>> Technical
>> ---------
>> Section 4.3.3 (including VIA_RVS) seems to conflict with 4.2.3 (VIA_RVS
>> parameter definition).  Section 4.3.3 states that VIA_RVS is mandatory
>> if the I1 arrived via a RVS, but 4.2.3 says that the responder MAY
>> choose to send it for debugging purposes.
>>
>> Another point regarding Section 4.2.3:  it states that the responder may
>> include "a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of the
>> packets."  What use cases are there for including more than a single RVS
>> address (the one that was used)?   Would more than one RVS ever need to
>> be traversed between initiator and responder?  I don't think the draft
>> supports such security relationships, so perhaps it would be best to
>> explicitly say it is out of scope.
>>
>> Editorial
>> ----------
>> Section 6 (IANA) needs to be updated to request the new action items of
>> IANA, not the ones previously asked when 5204 was published.
>> Accordingly, IANA is not assigning new Parameter Types but instead this
>> draft should request that IANA update the reference for these three
>> types from 5204 to this document.  The same holds for the Registration
>> Type value.
>>
>> - Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec