On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 02:35:07pm +0200, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > First he will look into adding clarifications to the existing draft > while still referencing the old RFC. If the group is not happy with the > readability after the editorial pass (or our AD does not finally let us > downref the old RFC), we can consider bringing material from the old RFC > directly into the new one.
Sorry, that I'm quite late in looking at these, but have been doing so recently... I have to say that I find the it difficult to decode simply because of having to refer to 3 (the draft, 5770, 5245) plus possibly the STUN/TURN docs at once. I'd certainly find it easier to comprehend if the text from 5770 was incorporated (suitably modified to account for not doing STUN/TURN) within the draft. That way the references to the significant pieces of 5245 text would be easier to nail down. As it is, I currently find it a bit like reading an Act of Parliament! e.g. $3.8 Connectivity Checks refers to $4.6 of 5770 with some exceptions, $4.6 of 5770 refers to $5.7 of 5245 and $7 of 5245, where the exceptions (use of UPDATE instead of STUN) have to be applied to that $7 referencing 5389, so possibly I don't have to read 5389, since hopefully it would just be packet formats. > I would also like the group to comment on the following two proposals: > > 1) the draft will allow implementers to use HIP native relays only. In > addition, the use of STUN and TURN relays will be optional. I'd suggest the draft be native only, but say with an appendix referencing 5770 for use of STUN/TURN, maybe indicating which bits of the 5770 to take heed of. > 2) in addition to covering the base exchange, the draft will also cover > the mobility readdressing exchange. Not having read that recently, I can't really comment. DF _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
