Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis

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

--julien

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
<Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Tom.
>
> Julien, could you please look into Tom's comments and address them in a
> new revision of the draft?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, 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-rfc5205-bis/
>>>
>>> Please, send your comments to this list.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>
>> I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments.
>>
>> (possibly) technical
>> --------------------
>>
>> RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but
>> this document only mentions ECDSA.  For alignment with RFC 7401, I
>> suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as
>> appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same codepoint).
>>
>> I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any?  If
>> there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records
>> may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly
>> reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records).
>>
>> The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a
>> host wants to register more than one host identity.  I suggest something
>> along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a
>> single name.  It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a
>> host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned.
>> The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or
>> may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is
>> associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present."
>>
>> editorial
>> ---------
>>
>> IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we
>> are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code
>> should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification."  and "this
>> document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and
>> ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR."
>>
>> Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with
>> "degenerate".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec