Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Christer Holmberg <> Sun, 06 May 2018 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFDD129C59 for <>; Sun, 6 May 2018 12:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Om6w9QJ3PM3h for <>; Sun, 6 May 2018 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D1D12D77C for <>; Sun, 6 May 2018 12:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt;; t=1525634599; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=9oaGnZEzBYPXEE8mFjIQ9AuZ5/EmyRTs0VeGhWKrkV8=; b=ZMDyblsrNqJ7J1dzOSgpzjhozj1LCo9BVIdMjmEz5k2OjdO/2UuazMeCN/uKLC9R KIpPdkYhphbevxwTpH/fOUtZVKFMIXAzANRmsq9wW0BCyMRgVb8rmYZA950vrSlo kFBUJEKkNn1rtsBxVEfnQ8eMCByRAl+Zx4YR58NinHE=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-ac3ff700000055bf-66-5aef5627ff7f
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 28.B5.21951.7265FEA5; Sun, 6 May 2018 21:23:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Sun, 6 May 2018 21:23:19 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
CC: The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHT497tPndaPbfR0EuvRo85uzt3DKQi880Q///8FICAACLV2v//35UAgAAkvtA=
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 19:23:18 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupikeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbFdS1c97H2UwdXlEhbtazqYLVa8Psdu caS1i91i6qLJzBYz/kxkdmD1WLLkJ5PH5MdtzAFMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZD1f+YypoEKo4 /PUwcwPjEcEuRk4OCQETiY1rFrN0MXJxCAkcYZRoX7GVCcJZxCjR8nEXkMPBwSZgIdH9Txuk QURAQeLXnxNgDcwClxklWvduYgFJCAuUSnx6tpUNoqhM4tfvE6wQtp9Ew6t+dpA5LAIqEl/2 ioCEeQV8JW5uWMwIsesak0T/8WNMIAlOgUCJzmVvwWxGATGJ76fWgNnMAuISt57MZ4K4WkBi yZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YIWwliZPdm1lAdjELaEqs36UP0aooMaX7ITvEXkGJkzOfsExgFJ2FZOos hI5ZSDpmIelYwMiyilG0OLW4ODfdyFgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwhg5u+a27g3H1a8dDjAIc jEo8vMIq76OEWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifBuNwcK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES59VbtSdK SCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwJgwN4zzypUl3vNZ0jyEl3Q92zFDN+5tiNDmjrIZVrcelLOX vFfb/OrhwYIbugmMnGvZFmxcFeQoHLF+TW7TAlWJeb3XN+w8OkmGNVQ86dDG3i+njfPdemZm uegw1TbKuUl/F99yUE/6ySO1oyxJ8+62Gj8R7XU1EpYV4Q2tLjjnY+cYn/5pihJLcUaioRZz UXEiAKyDCcidAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 19:23:25 -0000


>> The question is whether this document should re-define the HIP variations to ICE that RFC 5770 already does.
> That may be your question, but it's not my question. My question is that I'm not sure this document is 
> sufficiently clear and unambigious to implement, given its current structure.

Sure, the may be editorial work to do, but I still think it is important to clarify whether the reader of this document is expected to be familiar with RFC 5770, or whether this document is supposed to be an "ICE variant" on its own.



On 6 May 2018, at 22.01, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:

> I am very familiar with ICE and yet I found this document extremely hard to follow. The problem is that it cherry-picks pieces 
> of ICE and I'm just not sure that it's a complete specification when put all together. I have noted a number of places where I 
> actually am not sure how to implement something, and fixing those will resolve this DISCUSS, but IMO you really should totally 
> rewrite this document either (a) as a variant of ICE or (b) as an entirely new document not with a pile of new text and then 
> references out to ICE sections.

I haven't been involved in the work on this draft, so I may be wrong, but I did review the document and my understanding is that RFC 5770 is the "variant of ICE", and this document is a modification/extension to RFC 5770.

This document is a variant of ICE in the sense that it is ICE-like and explicitly depends on quite a bit of ICE.