Okay. > Am 16.09.2016 um 07:30 schrieb Tom Henderson <tomh...@u.washington.edu>: > > Mirja, > Inline below (the points still being discussed).... > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > >>>> 3) section 4: Can you give any hints how large the lifetime typically >>>> should be? Can only the original address have an unbounded lifetime (see >>>> section 5) or can I also set the lifetime value in a certain way to >>>> declare the lifetime of this address of unbounded? >>> Effectively unbounded lifetimes can be set by setting the 32-bit field to >>> the maximum value. >> >> Okay that's not spelled out in the doc. >> >>> In practice, I don't know of any guidance to offer, other than perhaps >>> aligning it with lifetimes of the addresses such as DHCP leased addresses. >> >> That means like useful guidance. >>> I guess that we could add a statement that an 'effectively unbounded' >>> lifetime can be set by setting the field to the maximum (unsigned) value. >> >> Would you then also need to talk about risks when doing so...? > > I can make the above changes about lifetimes, but for the last one, I am not > sure that there are any risks to it-- I won't mention risks unless someone in > the list has ideas about any. > > >>>> 3) I believe reading would be easier for me if section 4 would have been >>>> first but not sure... >>> I'm not sure about reordering sections without more specific change >>> proposals. >> >> Or you could add a paragraph in the intro explaining where to find what. > > OK > >> >>>> 4) This docuemnt states several times that mutlihoming is out of scope >>>> and only the handover case is described. I think it would be better to >>>> state this clearly at the very beginning and remove the other cases (I >>>> believe these are anyway kind of left-overs from the previous document.) >>> Can you point to what you would like to have removed or changed? Early on, >>> we moved most of this material to the other draft, and in scanning it again >>> just now, I am not sure what more to take out or rephrase. It is hard to >>> completely avoid the topic of having multiple addresses in this draft, >>> particularly since we are defining the LOCATOR_SET parameter that is used >>> in the multihoming specification. >> Maybe just grab from the word multihoming and double-check if you really >> need it there. For me it somtimes showed up at place there I thought it's >> actually not needed to mentioned that again. >> But that's nothing big... > > I searched for the word just now and wasn't inclined to remove any of those > remaining references, so I think I'll leave it for now unless someone > proposes a specific change. > > - Tom
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
