> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Ari Keränen > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:23 PM > To: Miika Komu > Cc: HIP > Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis > > Hi, > > On 3/26/13 3:44 PM, Miika Komu wrote: > > On 03/26/2013 01:18 PM, Petri Jokela wrote: > >>> >Section 6 should update the HIP protocol number to 139 (from 253). > >>> > > >>> >Do we want to reference the tunneling of ESP over UDP? > >> Here I cannot say anything. Any opinions from others? > > > > how are the RFCs bundled together for the standards track, or would > > this create an undesired dependencies? If it creates such a > > dependency, can it be avoided by referencing NAT specification as > informational? > > I think mentioning this possibility could make sense since "HIP doesn't > work through NATs" seems to be one of the biggest misconceptions people > have had about HIP. However, I don't see any reason why it should be a > normative reference, so informative (and hence not blocking) would be > fine. >
It could be done with reference to published RFCs, just to declare that it is out of scope of this document and handled elsewhere. e.g. something like this at the end of Introduction, with two informative references. "HIP and ESP traffic have known issues with middlebox traversal [RFC5207]. Other specifications exist for operating HIP and ESP over UDP ([RFC5770] is an experimental specification, and others are being developed). Middlebox traversal is out of scope for this document." _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
