Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt
Jeff Ahrenholz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.hipsec,gmane.ietf.hip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Miika, First of all, nice work with all of your changes! This is a big draft but seems much clearer without the RFC 5770 delta. Here’s some further comments on your questions... > * What should do with compatibility with RFC 6078 (HICCUPS) I think you can omit this, since RFC 6078 is for RFC 5201 (HIPv1). (Wait until if/when 6078 is updated for HIPv2.) > * Connectivity tests should be skipped unless ESP_TRANSFORM is > negotiated? Seems like a good idea. No ESP_TRANSFORM -> no need to establish two-way comms between peers. For example, when performing a registration procedure with a relay server. > * Steps 5-6 could be skipped in the handoff sequence? See fig. 6. If steps 5-6 are skipped, then we would have no SEQ in step 3? And the subsequent connectivity checks would suffice for these steps? Below are a few editorial nits... -Jeff page 2 s/checks keepalives, and data relaying./check keepalives and data relaying./g page 7 s/IPsec [RFC3948] Finally/IPsec [RFC3948]. Finally/ page 15 s/NATs drop messages messages/NATs drop messages/ page 18 s/the the recipient/the recipient/ page 22 s/interact handover/interact with handover/ page 27 s/MUST not/MUST NOT/ _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec