Re: [Hipsec] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06

Hi Joel,

Thank you for reviewing the document, and catching the discrepancy
between was Appendix A states in terms of UPDATE and double jump
mobility scenario, and the actual content of the document.

The WG discussed where to specify support for that scenario, and the
decision was that since it is only needed in mobility scenario, this
should be covered in the Host Mobility for HIP specification, aka
rfc5206bis.

Thus the Appendix A statement in 5203bis that it's adding support for
this scenario should have been removed some time ago. I will post an
update shortly.

For the record, the supporting specification for that scenario can be
found in section 3.2.3 of rfc5206bis:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-09#section-3.2.3

Best,

--julien

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06
>     Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 16-Dec-2015
> IETF LC End Date: 28-Dec-2015
> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>     Appendix A states that this document was changed by "Added relaying of
> UPDATE packets to support double jump mobility scenario."  Searching the
> document for the word update, I do not find any such relaying description.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec