Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-12.txt

Hi Jeff,

On 06/24/2016 06:23 PM, Jeff Ahrenholz wrote:
> 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.)

ok.

>>     * 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.

The direct path could be, of course, used for exchange HIP messages 
directly (including hiccups v2). Does this make sense?

If not, what should happen when both ESP_TRANSFORM and ICE-HIP-UDP are 
both negotiated? Or should we just be proactive and state that upon 
receiving R1, the Initiator MUST NOT include ICE-HIP-UDP if it is not 
going to employ any ESP_TRANSFORM.

>>    * 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?

Yes.

> And the subsequent connectivity checks would suffice for these steps?

Connectivity tests implement the return routability checks. Currently, 
the NAT mobility triggering mechanism mimics the tree-way procedure in here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12#section-3.2.1

I thought that would nice for implementers but strictly speaking steps 
5-6 could skipped since the connectivity checks actually implement the 
return routability checks.

I can change this if you agree?

> 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/

Thanks, I have fixed the nits and they will be included in the next version.

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec