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

Hi Miika,

> 
> trying to recap your complete opinion... do you think the 
> UDP-ENCAPSULATION should be MUST and ICE-HIP-UDP SHOULD? And RFC5770 
> MAY? Or do you think the draft should just deprecate RFC5770?

I think that UDP-ENCAPSULATION should be a MUST option because that option is sufficient if the implementation does not have to deal with inbound connections.

ICE-HIP-UDP should be a MUST for implementations that wish to support inbound, and I don't think that RFC5770 solutions for inbound should be suggested as options.  Maybe the use of STUN servers for candidate gathering is fine as a MAY since it doesn't affect HIP interoperability, but otherwise, why suggest to support two parallel implementations for the same function?  

I would be fine with making an allowance for RFC5770 implementations to live on as an option; by this I mean to not overwrite RFC5770 codepoints, etc. but stop short of suggesting it as a MAY in this document.

> 
> Btw, RFC5770 is still a normative reference because we are redundantly 
> explaining some parts of the RFC in the draft.
> 

I still believe that it would be better if this draft did not depend on reading RFC5770.

- Tom