Re: [Hipsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: (with COMMENT)

[Miika Komu]

Hi Adam,

ma, 2020-02-24 kello 09:15 -0800, Adam Roach via Datatracker kirjoitti:
> Adam Roach 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 to the authors for taking some of the concerns I laid out in
> my original
> ballot into account. I still do not believe this approach is good for
> HIP's
> benefit, but am no longer worried about collateral damage from other
> protocols
> imitating this approach. Accordingly, I am balloting "No Objection."
> 
> There is one remaining comment from my initial review that I think
> can and
> should be addressed prior to publication:
> 
> Appendix B:
> 
> >  o  Unlike in ICE, the addresses are not XOR-ed in Native ICE-HIP
> > protocol in order to avoid middlebox tampering.
> 
> This bullet should explain why such obfuscation is unnecessary.

based on discussion with Rescolarla, it actually says:

"Unlike in ICE, the addresses are not XOR-ed in Native ICE-HIP protocol
but rather encrypted to avoid middlebox tampering."


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30#appendix-B

P.S. Thanks again for your time and effort in reviewing the document!
___
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

[Hipsec] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach via Datatracker]

Adam Roach 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 to the authors for taking some of the concerns I laid out in my original
ballot into account. I still do not believe this approach is good for HIP's
benefit, but am no longer worried about collateral damage from other protocols
imitating this approach. Accordingly, I am balloting "No Objection."

There is one remaining comment from my initial review that I think can and
should be addressed prior to publication:

Appendix B:

>  o  Unlike in ICE, the addresses are not XOR-ed in Native ICE-HIP
> protocol in order to avoid middlebox tampering.

This bullet should explain why such obfuscation is unnecessary.



___
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec