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

Julien Laganier <> Thu, 17 December 2015 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAF71A1AFF; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:12:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V28Ll4g0j7Jk; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6E151A03C7; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 140so26564059ykp.0; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:12:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=F9OeVOxtNhbnelif4c0dvCb9g4tscmFrTrNjEqyAHcM=; b=Hj1ToGDesYHuZH+qVtxklTkMEUlhnaAehPEhkA9WcPUBxUMd8UVab1WRd5Ary9y1J9 xXtCLSIIs/nBy3pWiQ9pQv/APJVw7g+1qQzkMH4OJw0JNNRewk+htLZN+hYKISECPhpV bOdjL1htxXouCN3iHZravNXXMAOdbTH4aQdc+8Vqq50sY3S4UkTAkWmWLH/iDing0AjK 2laQO9PS8OQBdO1/iHHEssTmmQZJxR0EXEGxDLrzm5ROEnb4HHkE1lz/GLzLlY7tP+lG +hldf2lSdmWYVuit6KdQrxs07ASTEBUjwdeTVgP2seTre2LXsS0QA6YtjGFsib3v2QwC SvEg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id g204mr33566842ywg.234.1450372341839; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:12:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:12:21 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Julien Laganier <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: HIP <>, General Area Review Team <>, "A. Jean Mahoney" <>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:12:24 -0000

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

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:



On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern <> 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
> <>.
> 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