Hi all, I posted some initial issues back on June 28:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03873.html
and we had some discussion on the list that I believe resolved (or
nearly resolved) three of the four issues.
One that I feel is still open without strong consensus expressed is the
issue of whether HIP is subject to certain plaintext attacks. There was
some discussion in the thread about it. I opened issue 42 to track it:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/42
There are a few other comments that have been received during the IESG
review. The questions are posted here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis/ballot/
Barry Leiba pointed out a number of problems with how our IANA section
is written, and I had some discussion with him and also with IANA about
what is needed here, so I will take a stab at this in the next revision.
Issue 44 in the tracker is open for this:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/44
Brian Haberman raised some questions about changes to the R1_COUNTER; I
will go back to the archives on this and try to answer them.
Pete Resnick has asked us to provide more rationale/justification for
use of the TCP Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) in the draft.
Stephen Farrell has posted a number of questions that are probably best
served by starting a separate thread or threads.
IETF draft submission is closed until the 21st, but I plan to post an
update shortly after it reopens.
- Tom
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
