Hi, I am resending Tom's comments to the list since he seems to have failed to cc: the list on his email below. Thanks for your comments, Tom!
Cheers, Gonzalo On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: > On 01/29/2016 02:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >> on February 12th: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ >> >> Please, send your comments to this list. > > Gonzalo and all, > > My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago that the > standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native NAT traversal and > not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version. > > I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains normative > references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in RFC5770) > throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference in Section 8.1. It > seems to me that the WG ought to produce a specification that can stand alone > from RFC5770, because as it stands now, it seems to me that someone > implementing it would need to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about > what is still applicable from RFC5770. For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION > mode still valid? > > ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me that it > should also be informative in this draft. > > I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the Introduction, > stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 with a different mechanism > than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to avoid referencing 5770 from then on. > > - Tom _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
