Hi, The question is whether this document should re-define the HIP variations to ICE that RFC 5770 already does.
Regards, Christer Sent from my iPhone On 6 May 2018, at 22.01, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, > I am very familiar with ICE and yet I found this document extremely hard to > follow. The problem is that it cherry-picks pieces > of ICE and I'm just not sure that it's a complete specification when put all > together. I have noted a number of places where I > actually am not sure how to implement something, and fixing those will > resolve this DISCUSS, but IMO you really should totally > rewrite this document either (a) as a variant of ICE or (b) as an entirely > new document not with a pile of new text and then > references out to ICE sections. I haven't been involved in the work on this draft, so I may be wrong, but I did review the document and my understanding is that RFC 5770 is the "variant of ICE", and this document is a modification/extension to RFC 5770. This document is a variant of ICE in the sense that it is ICE-like and explicitly depends on quite a bit of ICE. -Ekr Regards, Christer
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
