Hi Miika, > > trying to recap your complete opinion... do you think the > UDP-ENCAPSULATION should be MUST and ICE-HIP-UDP SHOULD? And RFC5770 > MAY? Or do you think the draft should just deprecate RFC5770?
I think that UDP-ENCAPSULATION should be a MUST option because that option is sufficient if the implementation does not have to deal with inbound connections. ICE-HIP-UDP should be a MUST for implementations that wish to support inbound, and I don't think that RFC5770 solutions for inbound should be suggested as options. Maybe the use of STUN servers for candidate gathering is fine as a MAY since it doesn't affect HIP interoperability, but otherwise, why suggest to support two parallel implementations for the same function? I would be fine with making an allowance for RFC5770 implementations to live on as an option; by this I mean to not overwrite RFC5770 codepoints, etc. but stop short of suggesting it as a MAY in this document. > > Btw, RFC5770 is still a normative reference because we are redundantly > explaining some parts of the RFC in the draft. > I still believe that it would be better if this draft did not depend on reading RFC5770. - Tom _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
