On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Miika Komu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 12/16/2014 05:31 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> >> I noticed that the draft for RFC5204-bis (rendezvous extension) was >> recently refreshed, and was wondering what the remaining open issues are >> for this draft? >> >> I know of only one, which is a longstanding question of whether we want >> to cover RVS relaying of UPDATE messages in this specification. >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/1 >> >> Some choices appear to be: >> >> * do not support double jump in these specifications, leaving it for >> further study >> * add specification in RFC5204-bis that refers to UPDATE relaying >> * add specification in RFC5206-bis that refers to UPDATE relaying > > > I suggest the third option (unless Julien wants to write it in RFC5204). > Besides UPDATE relaying, we need also some text for the other side, i.e., > the registered host moves and updates its registration.
I also think the third option is the best. The relaying of UPDATEs messages is not required for a non-mobile host so RFC5204bis doesn't sound right since it documents a generic rendezvous mechanism that can be applied to a non-mobile host. On the other hand RFC5206bis is specifically concerned with host mobility so that seem to be a good place to add the extra bits of specification. --julien _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
