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 >> [email protected] >> 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 _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
