On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > The question is whether this document should re-define the HIP variations > to ICE that RFC 5770 already does. > That may be your question, but it's not my question. My question is that I'm not sure this document is sufficiently clear and unambigious to implement, given its current structure. -Ekr > Regards, > > Christer > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 6 May 2018, at 22.01, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Christer Holmberg < > christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > I am very familiar with ICE and yet I found this document extremely >> hard to follow. The problem is that it cherry-picks pieces >> > of ICE and I'm just not sure that it's a complete specification when >> put all together. I have noted a number of places where I >> > actually am not sure how to implement something, and fixing those will >> resolve this DISCUSS, but IMO you really should totally >> > rewrite this document either (a) as a variant of ICE or (b) as an >> entirely new document not with a pile of new text and then >> > references out to ICE sections. >> >> I haven't been involved in the work on this draft, so I may be wrong, but >> I did review the document and my understanding is that RFC 5770 is the >> "variant of ICE", and this document is a modification/extension to RFC 5770. >> > > This document is a variant of ICE in the sense that it is ICE-like and > explicitly depends on quite a bit of ICE. > > -Ekr > > >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
