Subject: [Hipsec] comment resolution on draft-ietf-hip-mm-03.txt

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:17 -0700

All,
I've now gone through all of the comments received on the mobility
management draft, which was WGLCed in March.  The revised version of the
draft, corresponding to the email that has been sent out, can be found
at:

http://www.openhip.org/ietf/drafts/draft-ietf-hip-mm-04-pre.txt

Miika Komu gave a really thorough review-- thanks very much!

The review has raised a small number of open issues, which I'd like to
summarize here:

1.  Miika has proposed a section on a HIP mobility management state
machine, and I've refrained from adding it until hearing from other
opinions.  I am not sure it is needed.

2.  Pekka has questioned the wisdom of granting credit for packets
received from an unverified source, in the CBA algorithm.  The
discussion has not resulted in a proposed text change; Pekka has not
responded to Christian's latest message on the topic.

3.  The draft makes no statement on whether nonces for address
reachability should be included within or outside of the signature.
Since UPDATEs are not precomputed, it seems to me that the nonces could
safely be included in the signature, unlike the base exchange case.

4.  Miika has proposed to make the sending of ESP_INFO in the third
UPDATE packet into a "MAY".  Right now, it is not mentioned as a
possibility.  Does this need to be explicit?

5.  Whether "LOCATOR" vs "Locator" (differentiating between the two
based on letter case) is too confusing, and we should find some other
word choice for one of them.

6.  Should there be a maximum length of a LOCATOR, or should it just be
bounded by maximum lengths of the HIP Parameters field?

Tom

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

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:30:26 +0300 (EEST)

> Miika Komu gave a really thorough review-- thanks very much!

My pleasure. Thanks Thomas for your patience - the draft is now in better 
shape.

> safely be included in the signature, unlike the base exchange case.

I'd put the nonces inside signatures unless there is a really good reason 
not to.

For the rest of open issues, I'd like to hear opinions from others as I 
have told mine.

-- 
Miika Komu              [email-masked]          http://www.iki.fi/miika/