Hello, I have read the latest (-17) draft and sent some purely editorial
comments to Miika. I had a few non-editorial questions and comments.
1) In appendix D, it states:
o A minimal implementation would conform only to Section 4.7.1 or
Section 4.7.2, thus merely tunneling HIP control and data traffic
over UDP. The drawback here is that it works only in the limited
cases where the Responder has a public address.
However, in section 5.4, it states:
Implementations conforming to this specification MUST implement both
UDP-ENCAPSULATION and ICE-HIP-UDP modes.
The contradictory text should be resolved. In my opinion, implementations that want to support
only the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode (and its restricted set of use cases) should be allowed.
However, I don't know what might need to be done to avoid a situation where a product claims
RFC compliance but only implements one of the two modes. It could perhaps be avoided by a
statement that states "Implementations that choose to only support the UDP-ENCAPSULATION
mode should clarify this point when any claims of <RFC-to-be> compliance are made."
2) Appendix C states:
o The considerations on Diffserv Codepoint markings in ICE are not
applicable to HIP since Diffserv is not used in HIP.
Why wouldn't the same issues arise in HIP as in ICE on this matter? Should
this draft instead copy or reference the RFC 5245 recommendation:
If the agent is using Diffserv Codepoint markings [RFC2475] in its
media packets, it SHOULD apply those same markings to its
connectivity checks.
Also, I don't think that the HIP control plane should be excluded from using
diffserv.
3) In section 4.10 (NAT keepalives), it states:
Both a registered client and relay server SHOULD
send a HIP NOTIFY packets to each other every 15 seconds (the so-
called Tr value in ICE) unless they have exchange some other traffic
over the used UDP ports.
However, I couldn't find an explanation anywhere (also in RFC 5770) about how to code
this NOTIFY. Would it make sense to define also a "NAT_KEEPALIVE" NOTIFY
message type for this purpose?
Once these issues are resolved, I think that the draft would be ready to
publish.
- Tom
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Folks,
I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will
end on February 19th:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/
Thanks,
Gonzalo
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
