Re: updates to HIP mobility and multihoming drafts

Ver 14 of HIP mobility addresses my concerns.

Tom, thank you for making the change to clarify the draft.

Bob

On 10/10/2016 08:22 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
> The new versions of the HIP mobility and multihoming drafts address 
> various review comments received during IESG reviews.
>
> Besides editorial changes, the following changes were made to RFC 
> 5206-bis version 14:
>
> *  Replace references to 'middleboxes' with more specific |'NATs and 
> firewalls' and make reference to RFC 5207
> *  Describe a simple heuristic for setting the credit value for 
> Credit-Based Authorization based on sending rate and RTT.
> *  Add subsection about privacy concerns of locator exposure to the 
> Security Considerations section.
> *  Clarify that a host must be able to receive and avoid reprocessing 
> redundant LOCATOR_SET parameters that may have been sent in parallel 
> to multiple addresses of the host.
> *  Clarify that multicast or broadcast addresses must not be announced 
> in a LOCATOR_SET.
>
> and the following to the multihoming draft version 12:
>
> * Added section about locator privacy concerns ! to the Security 
> Considerations section.
> * Added section about relationship to split tunnel issues to the 
> Security Considerations section.
>
> I believe that all outstanding comments and issues have been addressed.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

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