Hi, >> The question is whether this document should re-define the HIP variations to >> ICE that RFC 5770 already does. > > That may be your question, but it's not my question. My question is that I'm > not sure this document is > sufficiently clear and unambigious to implement, given its current structure.
Sure, the may be editorial work to do, but I still think it is important to clarify whether the reader of this document is expected to be familiar with RFC 5770, or whether this document is supposed to be an "ICE variant" on its own. Regards, Christer On 6 May 2018, at 22.01, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Christer Holmberg <[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
