Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A few minor high-level comments/questions: 1) To me it feels that sec 11 doesn't really belong in this bis doc. Maybe that is rather an own report or can just go in the appendix? 2) Should this document maybe discuss connection migration as used by QUIC as an alternative (based on short term connection identifiers instead of course)? Background: to provide identities between two endpoints, I'd say that TLS is sufficient or even the more appropriate solution. However, this document does not talk very much about cases where the identify of other IP hosts (not endpoints) is important. Oft course it covers the mobility use case but that also seems less relevant with migration support in QUIC. _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
