> -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Laganier [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Henderson, Thomas R > Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items > > Folks, > > I've been thinking a bit more about the update of RFC5204 / Rendezvous > Server support. See below: > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julien Laganier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > [...] > > - 5204bis (rendezvous) needs one more subsection regarding relaying > of > > the UPDATE packet to support double jump of mobile nodes. As this > > isn't really useful without the mobility support my proposal is to > > tackle this one together with the 5206bis. > > I figured two things: > > 1- relaying an UPDATE packet is pointless in the absence of HIP > mobility support on both endpoints. > > 2- support for rendezvous server is useful independently of support for > HIP mobility. > > Taking both 1. and 2. into account, my conclusion is that it makes > sense to keep the rendezvous server support self-contained in 5203bis, > i.e., without a normative dependency to the mobility support in > 5206bis, while 5206 would specify an extension to rendezvous mechanism > for support of relaying UPDATE packets. > > Makes sense? >
Julien, I would be fine with your proposal. - Tom _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
