Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal

Hi,

I am resending Tom's comments to the list since he seems to have failed
to cc: the list on his email below. Thanks for your comments, Tom!

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 02:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end
>> on February 12th:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/
>>
>> Please, send your comments to this list. 
> 
> Gonzalo and all,
> 
> My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version.
> 
> I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference in Section 8.1.  It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still applicable from RFC5770.  For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode still valid?
> 
> ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me that it should also be informative in this draft.
> 
> I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to avoid referencing 5770 from then on. 
> 
> - Tom