Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18

Mail folder problems.  I will be catching up with all of this starting 
Friday (Purim tonight and tomorrow).

Bob

On 02/18/2018 12:33 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2018-02-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFCs.
>       The following comments may be useful for the authors to consider.
>
> Major issues: N/A
>
> Minor issues:
>      In the table in section 2.2 (Terms specific to this and other HIP
>      documents) the Host Identity Hash is defined as "The cryptographic hash
>      used in creating the Host Identity Tag from the Host Identity."  I am
>      pretty sure the last word should be Identifier, not Identity,, which
>      matches the meanings and the usage in the following term.
>
>      In section 4.1 second paragraph, it seems odd to refer to the
>      public-private key pair as the structure of the abstract Host Identity.
>      Given that the earlier text refers to the Public key as the Host
>      Identifier, I am not sure how you want to refer to the public/private key
>      pair.  But I do not think it "is" the structure of the Host Identity.
>
>      In the section 4.4 discussion of locally scoped identifier (LSI), it
>      appears that applications need to be modified to use this.  Reading between
>      the lines of the stack architecture, the actual advantage of using HIP with
>      LSIs is that the application changes can be restricted to whatever
>      indication is to be used that the stack is to use HIP, rather than changing
>      the places that use sockaddrs, etc.  But this is not clearly stated here.
>
>      In section 5.1 paragraph 3, the text talks about a connecting client not
>      specifying a responder identifier (HIP Opportunistic mode) in order to
>      enable load balancing.  I think the text would be helped by an example of
>      how an initiator might know to do this, rather than just not using HIP.
>      Also, it would be good if the text was explicit as to whether or not there
>      was a way to support load balancing / multi servers without either using a
>      shared identity or sacrificing security by using Opportunistic HIP.
>
>      Given that section 5 is titled "New Stack Architecture", I think it would
>      be helpful if the section were explicit as to where the HIP logic lives
>      relative to the IP and UDP/TCP portions of the host stack.  This would help
>      the reader have the right model for interpreting section 6.2 and 8.1.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>      Section 4.2 third sentence "It is possible to for ..." should be "It is
>      possible for ..."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>