Subject: RE: [Hipsec] Preliminary

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:35:19 -0700

Hi, I just had a few comments:

- In section 3, it is more correct to state that the mm draft presumes
initial reachability of the two nodes with respect to each other, rather
than saying that the mm- extensions require an established HIP
association, because it is discussed in the mm- draft how to piggyback
some LOC parameters on the base exchange messages.

- " When the initiator I tries to establish contact with the responder
R,
   it MAY send the I1 of the base exchange either to one of R's DNS
   addresses or it MAY send it to the address of one of R's rendezvous
   servers instead."
(suggested change-- "When the initiator I tries to establish contact
with
the responder R, it must send the I1 of the base exchange either to one
of
R's IP addresses (if known via DNS or other means) or to one of R's
rendezvous servers instead.")  

- I would recommend promoting the editorial "Comment.1" to somewhere in
Section 3 (it is really a comment about the scope of this document).  

- HIP architecture document is slated to become Informational (or even
Historic) document, so perhaps should be moved to Informative references
section.

- Section 4.2.1-- it is confusing that RVS_HMAC is here described as
"OPTIONAL" when in previous sections, it is described as a "MUST" to
include.

- In section 5, I suggest change "SIGMA" to "base exchange" protocol, or
else reference the SIGMA work.

s/an RVS/a RVS/g 
s/SHOULD not/SHOULD NOT/g

Tom

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec