Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis

Thanks for this review as well, Tom.

Julien, Lars, could you please address Tom's comments in a new revision
of the draft?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 05/05/2015 2:02 AM, 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-rfc5204-bis/
>>
>> Please, send your comments to this list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>
> 
> Here are a few questions/comments on this draft.
> 
> Technical
> ---------
> Section 4.3.3 (including VIA_RVS) seems to conflict with 4.2.3 (VIA_RVS
> parameter definition).  Section 4.3.3 states that VIA_RVS is mandatory
> if the I1 arrived via a RVS, but 4.2.3 says that the responder MAY
> choose to send it for debugging purposes.
> 
> Another point regarding Section 4.2.3:  it states that the responder may
> include "a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of the
> packets."  What use cases are there for including more than a single RVS
> address (the one that was used)?   Would more than one RVS ever need to
> be traversed between initiator and responder?  I don't think the draft
> supports such security relationships, so perhaps it would be best to
> explicitly say it is out of scope.
> 
> Editorial
> ----------
> Section 6 (IANA) needs to be updated to request the new action items of
> IANA, not the ones previously asked when 5204 was published.
> Accordingly, IANA is not assigning new Parameter Types but instead this
> draft should request that IANA update the reference for these three
> types from 5204 to this document.  The same holds for the Registration
> Type value.
> 
> - Tom