Hi,
On 3/26/13 3:44 PM, Miika Komu wrote:
On 03/26/2013 01:18 PM, Petri Jokela wrote:
>Section 6 should update the HIP protocol number to 139 (from 253).
>
>Do we want to reference the tunneling of ESP over UDP?
Here I cannot say anything. Any opinions from others?
how are the RFCs bundled together for the standards track, or would this
create an undesired dependencies? If it creates such a dependency, can
it be avoided by referencing NAT specification as informational?
I think mentioning this possibility could make sense since "HIP doesn't
work through NATs" seems to be one of the biggest misconceptions people
have had about HIP. However, I don't see any reason why it should be a
normative reference, so informative (and hence not blocking) would be fine.
Cheers,
Ari
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
