Hi Mirja, ke, 2020-02-26 kello 09:11 -0800, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker kirjoitti: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > Thanks for addressing my discuss points and most of my other > comments. I > believe the following comments from my previous ballot are still > valid: > > I agree with other ADs that it is not clear to me why this mechanism > is needed > in addition RFC5770. This is a use case for ICE and I would think > that re-using > existing code and library would make implementation easier, faster > and less > error-prone. I especially agree to the comments from Adam!
I have argumented this in earlier discussions, so I won't repeat it here. Adam changed his ballot to "No objection". > Other comments: > > 4) sec 4.8: "When a host does not receive > acknowledgments, e.g., to an UPDATE or CLOSE packet after a > timeout > based on local policies, a host SHOULD resend the packet through > the > associated Data Relay Server of the peer (if the peer listed it in > its LOCATOR_SET parameter in the base exchange." > I did not really find anything about this in section 5.10 of RFC5770. > In think > the timeout needs to be further specified. the timeout mechanisms are specified in the RFC7401 state machine specification, so I added a reference there instead of repeating it here: A. When a host does not receive acknowledgments, e.g., to an UPDATE or CLOSE packet after a timeout based on local policies, a host SHOULD resend the packet through the associated Data Relay Server of the peer (if the peer listed it in its LOCATOR_SET parameter in the base exchange *according the rules specified in section 4.4.2 in [RFC7401]*. _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
