Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 02/21/2011 11:54 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21/02/11 17:49, Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:
>
>>>> Section 6.2 last paragraph discusses skipping the address check;
>>>> CBA can also be used to reduce handover latency here?
>>>
>>> CBA?
>>
>> credit-based authentication
>>
>> Maybe this lost its steam? Was it ever implemented?
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vogt-hip-credit-based-authorization-00
>>
>> I wouldn't reference CBA if there is no WG interest...
>
> it's part of RFC5206.

Which is NOT referenced in 4423 yet.  Should it here and how?

>
>>>> "There was little if any concrete thoughts about how HIP might affect
>>>>    IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
>>>> This sentence made sense in conjunction with the RFC 4423 abstract:
>>>> "The memo describes the thinking of the authors as of Fall 2003."
>>>> ...but without such text that sentence on multicast doesn't really
>>>> stand on its own.
>>>
>>> What would you suggest?
>>
>> maybe:
>> "There has not been much work in describing how HIP might affect
>> IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
>> or:
>> "Few concrete thoughts exist about how HIP might affect
>> IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
>> ?
>>
>> Just trying to reduce the dependency on: "[As of Fall 2003] there was 
>> little if any..."
>
> these guys have been researching on HIP-based multicast:
>
> http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICNS.2007.66

I could not figure this out enough to develop an informative reference.  
If you think I should, please help with the text in the section and the 
reference XML.