Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi,

On 05/06/2018 10:23 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> The question is whether this document should re-define the HIP variations to ICE that RFC 5770 already does.
>>
>> That may be your question, but it's not my question. My question is that I'm not sure this document is
>> sufficiently clear and unambigious to implement, given its current structure.
> 
> Sure, the may be editorial work to do, but I still think it is important to clarify whether the reader of this document is expected to be familiar with RFC 5770, or whether this document is supposed to be an "ICE variant" on its own.

we wanted to keep the same document structure as RFC5770 because the 
developers were already familiar with it (and has two interoperable 
implementations). While we tried to duplicate some RFC5770 material to 
make the specification a bit more standalone, the document is still 
aimed for people who developed RFC5770.

As you noted, the document is missing the exact section references 
because the ICE spec has been a moving target but I guess the references 
would safe to be fixed now.

Thanks Eric for the insightful technical comments. I'll try to get you 
answers as soon as possible.

> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 May 2018, at 22.01, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> I am very familiar with ICE and yet I found this document extremely hard to follow. The problem is that it cherry-picks pieces
>> of ICE and I'm just not sure that it's a complete specification when put all together. I have noted a number of places where I
>> actually am not sure how to implement something, and fixing those will resolve this DISCUSS, but IMO you really should totally
>> rewrite this document either (a) as a variant of ICE or (b) as an entirely new document not with a pile of new text and then
>> references out to ICE sections.
> 
> I haven't been involved in the work on this draft, so I may be wrong, but I did review the document and my understanding is that RFC 5770 is the "variant of ICE", and this document is a modification/extension to RFC 5770.
> 
> This document is a variant of ICE in the sense that it is ICE-like and explicitly depends on quite a bit of ICE.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
>