[Hipsec] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 16 July 2020 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730AD3A07BB; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal@ietf.org, hip-chairs@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.8.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <159488019805.15632.6827888990814697952@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:16:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/yhz-LT3H1AqtMSVsc-LZgBOei1I>
Subject: [Hipsec] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 06:16:38 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-31: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Sec 4.2 and 4.6.2 specify a minimum of RTO of 500ms. There’s no way you would
know this,  but draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider is close to IESG approval and
specifies a minimum of 1 second without more information about the path. I
would prefer that we change these minimums but perhaps there’s a compelling
reason for 500ms?

 RFC 5770 is a normative downref. I couldn’t find indication the procedures in
 RFC 3967 or 4897 were followed to address this. One solution would be to
 downgrade this document to Experimental.


Thank you for an easy-to-read document.