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

Thank you for the review Tom! Please see below.

> On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>> 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?

Indeed this variant is the standards-track solution, but I think it 
makes sense to not obsolete the RFC5770. For example, in some scenario 
the STUN based solution could be better than native HIP based. And also 
the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should be 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.

The details of e.g., how ICE checklists are used are defined in RFC5245 
so I think it needs to be normative.

>> 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.

Avoiding RFC 5770 altogether would require lots of editorial work with 
this draft for a questionable amount of benefit, so I think it's better 
if we simply have it as normative reference. The maturity level of 5770 
(experimental) is an issue, but I think it is possible - and makes sense 
- to make an exception here.


Cheers,
Ari