Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal

Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-hipsec@employees.org> Mon, 28 March 2016 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dfawcus@employees.org>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE561127058 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=dfawcus+lists-hipsec@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 UUaqhzq9omXP for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CA4312D104 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F9DD7883; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=selector1; bh=3VnY5PJBMi62ahxjS631E+xTyBM=; b=jc AUUows/bXbCeuemQ7NJo3mNLa6EY+NKTLxquev+eQzhn40/hoE066fcMBK4OyeqL W1r4SjIsaCa1bxI0I6VEcsH1biDyUhPUOaYJn1ALafvgj097geOmqT0MQw+Bqi3P s3LKEj/3sQt0otQ7ljueSv+RQtHtRVGh5so1KGOjk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=date:from :to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=jJzHRmv6qEBGd3pAw/K1GjvXo+9U 7e24sQkEzFHWGiwhQ1lAJ13tMukCo7pFoFj37i2OZN9A51UwDivxRUx5uePkWArR V7vwlIWkAbPUnij8GfvvnXUG3fYsJp+u2JdJGzfzyFJRzIMRe/M03Z3aeKeoIBJu hmVDn4R1Gm1EWVU=
Received: by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix, from userid 1736) id DA8FAD7882; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:51:06 +0100
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-hipsec@employees.org>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <20160328235106.GA79648@cowbell.employees.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>, hipsec@ietf.org
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1602230608110.18671@hymn04.u.washington.edu> <56CDBDA1.7050207@ericsson.com> <3CEE85EA-C996-4B28-B0A3-DA8B158BD159@temperednetworks.com> <56D1630A.7000209@ericsson.com> <56D45895.2060503@ericsson.com> <56DD757B.8050002@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56DD757B.8050002@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/kilNCAOE8sy0uBWCwt1gHyi2hjY>
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <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, 28 Mar 2016 23:51:17 -0000

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 02:35:07pm +0200, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> First he will look into adding clarifications to the existing draft
> while still referencing the old RFC. If the group is not happy with the
> readability after the editorial pass (or our AD does not finally let us
> downref the old RFC), we can consider bringing material from the old RFC
> directly into the new one.

Sorry,  that I'm quite late in looking at these,  but have been doing
so recently...

I have to say that I find the it difficult to decode simply because
of having to refer to 3 (the draft, 5770, 5245) plus possibly the
STUN/TURN docs at once.

I'd certainly find it easier to comprehend if the text from 5770 was
incorporated (suitably modified to account for not doing STUN/TURN)
within the draft.  That way the references to the significant pieces
of 5245 text would be easier to nail down.

As it is,  I currently find it a bit like reading an Act of Parliament!

e.g. $3.8 Connectivity Checks
   refers to $4.6 of 5770 with some exceptions, $4.6 of 5770 refers to
$5.7 of 5245 and $7 of 5245,  where the exceptions (use of UPDATE instead
of STUN) have to be applied to that $7 referencing 5389,  so possibly
I don't have to read 5389, since hopefully it would just be packet formats.

> I would also like the group to comment on the following two proposals:
> 
> 1) the draft will allow implementers to use HIP native relays only. In
> addition, the use of STUN and TURN relays will be optional.

I'd suggest the draft be native only,  but say with an appendix referencing
5770 for use of STUN/TURN,  maybe indicating which bits of the 5770
to take heed of.

> 2) in addition to covering the base exchange, the draft will also cover
> the mobility readdressing exchange.

Not having read that recently,  I can't really comment.

DF