Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft -ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]> Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:14:09 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.hipsec,gmane.ietf.hip
Message-ID <[email protected]>
I have one question on sec 5.4 before I enter a comment...

On 09/12/2016 03:28 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> 5) section 5.4: How long will an address be in UNVERIFIED state in case
> the verification is not successful (no reply). Is there a timer? How
> often will the peer retry the verification test? How long does the peer
> wait until resending the verification packet?
>

It took me a couple readings of 5.4 to THINK I understand fig 7.

I THINK this occurs after Mobile Host has sent its HIP UPDATE with the 
new locator information.

I believe the implication of this figure is that the stationary node 
(peer host) sends its address validation HIP UPDATE and instead of 
receiving the HIP UPDATE with ACK, it receives actual data which it may 
interpret as the ACK.

So I have two points.

First does this only apply when there are new SPI?  What about a move 
with no SPI changes?

Second, the actual figure should include the original HIP UPDATE from 
Mobile Host to make it clear the nature of the mobility.

Sorry for the late review of this draft.

I can submit an official comment if others think my questions raise 
clarity issues.

Bob