Hi Jeff, On 06/30/2016 07:33 PM, Jeff Ahrenholz wrote:
On 6/30/16, 9:06 AM, "Miika Komu"<[email protected]> wrote:>>Seems like a good idea. No ESP_TRANSFORM -> no need to establish two-way comms between peers. >>For example, when performing a registration procedure with a relay server.> >The direct path could be, of course, used for exchange HIP messages >directly (including hiccups v2). Does this make sense?yes, makes sense>If not, what should happen when both ESP_TRANSFORM and ICE-HIP-UDP are >both negotiated? Or should we just be proactive and state that upon >receiving R1, the Initiator MUST NOT include ICE-HIP-UDP if it is not >going to employ any ESP_TRANSFORM.
>
This proposed sentence seems like a good revision.
we need to choose between the two alternatives:1. Either always set up the direct path with connectivity tests when ICE mode negotiated
2. ...or set it up only when both ESP and ICE-HIP-UDP are presentAfter this discussion, I would actually lean towards the first option because this would make the two options independent. And even if you don't use ESP, you would still get a direct path for hiccups v2.
So actually no change to the draft :) What say you?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
