Host Mobility with the Host Identity Protocol
draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-14

[Ballot comment]
I support Alexey's comment:
This document doesn't have "Changes since RFC XXXX" section as required for any -bis document. Can you please convert Appendix A to be such a section?

[Ballot comment]

My review was based on the diff vs. 5206 [1], and turned
up nothing new of note:-) Seems like a reasonable update
to me.

I do however agree about the privacy issue raised by Mirja
wrt exposing locators. It is worth noting that, so that
implementers have it flagged that they need to consider
that - not doing so caused quite a fuss for WebRTC so
better to not repeat that.

  [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc5206&url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13.txt

[Ballot comment]
I have a couple of minor nearly DISCUSSes that should be easy to fix:

This document doesn't have "Changes since RFC XXXX" section as required for any -bis document. Can you please convert Appendix A to be such a section?

As this is a -bis document that obsoletes the original RFC 5206, its IANA Considerations section should be self contained. I think you should
mention that IANA has allocated type 193 for LOCATOR_SET and type 46 for LOCATOR_TYPE_UNSUPPORTED Notify Message Type, as specified in RFC 5206.

[Ballot comment]
Some concrete comments:
1) Can you further explain the scenario assumed in these sentences! What is the middblebox supposed/expected to do?
"In this case, the OLD SPI and NEW SPI parameters
      both are set to the value of the preexisting incoming SPI; this
      ESP_INFO does not trigger a rekeying event but is instead
      included for possible parameter-inspecting middleboxes on the
      path. "
and
"An additional potential benefit of performing address verification is
  to allow middleboxes in the network along the new path to obtain the
  peer host's inbound SPI."

2) Section 3.2.1. step 2: I guess the peer would also need to retransmit the UPDATE+ECHO_REQUEST if it doesn't get a reply in time? (Didn't check RFC7401...)

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?

4) section 4/5: maybe state more clearly that a 'new' LOCATOR_SET replaces the old one and therefore if a hosts sens a LOCATOR_SET is MUST include all active addresses. I believe that's what you are doing from the description in section 5 but it's never really spelled out...

5) section 5.4: How long will an address be in UNVERIFIED state in case the verification is not successful (no reply). Is there a timer? How often will the peer retry the verification test? How long does the peer wait until resending the verification packet?

6) section 5.6: The proposed  Credit-Based Authorization  seems quite complicated for me. First please state clearly the goal: I guess the scenario is that that you send data to the host and the host switches to new address. To be able to keep sending data with the same rate during the "switch-over 3-way-handshake" you need this credit system. So, what you actually need is to estimate the current sending rate in packets per RTT and take this number of packets as your credit. If you know the RTT you can simply count the packets. You can probably always estimate the RTT during the initial HIP 'handshake'/UPDATE exchange. If you don't have a way to update this RTT estimate during the connection, you might just use 2xRTT or 3xRTT to be safe...

And more general comments:
1) Did you see any deployment problems because you don't expose a port number (at a know location above the IP header) with e.g. NATs?

2) Usually documents that obsolete another rfc have a "changes from RFCXXXX" section. Not sure if this is needed in this case when you move from experimental to proposed stanadard but given the rather larger number of changes, I would find it helpful.

3) I believe reading would be easier for me if section 4 would have been first but not sure...

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.)

5) The security section should also talk about privacy concerns when exposing identifiers to middleboxes (see comment 1 above)

[Ballot comment]
Some concrete comments:
1) Can you further explain the scenario assumed in these sentences! What is the middblebox supposed/expected to do?
"In this case, the OLD SPI and NEW SPI parameters
      both are set to the value of the preexisting incoming SPI; this
      ESP_INFO does not trigger a rekeying event but is instead
      included for possible parameter-inspecting middleboxes on the
      path. "
and
"An additional potential benefit of performing address verification is
  to allow middleboxes in the network along the new path to obtain the
  peer host's inbound SPI."

2) Section 3.2.1. step 2: I guess the peer would also need to retransmit the UPDATE+ECHO_REQUEST if it doesn't get a reply in time? (Didn't check RFC7401...)

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?

4) section 4/5: maybe state more clearly that a 'new' LOCATOR_SET replaces the old one and therefore if a hosts sens a LOCATOR_SET is MUST include all active addresses. I believe that's what you are doing from the description in section 5 but it's never really spelled out...

5) section 5.4: How long will an address be in UNVERIFIED state in case the verification is not successful (no reply). Is there a timer? How often will the peer retry the verification test? How long does the peer wait until resending the verification packet?

6) section 5.6: The proposed  Credit-Based Authorization  seems quite complicated for me. First please state clearly the goal: I guess the scenario is that that you send data to the host and the host switches to new address. To be able to keep sending data with the same rate during the "switch-over 3-way-handshake" you need this credit system. So, what you actually need is to estimate the current sending rate in packets per RTT and take this number of packets as your credit. If you know the RTT you can simply count the packets. You can probably always estimate the RTT during the initial HIP 'handshake'/UPDATE exchange. If you don't have a way to update this RTT estimate during the connection, you might just use 2xRTT or 3xRTT to be safe...

And more general comments:
1) Did you see any deployment problems because you don't expose a port number (at a know location above the IP header) with e.g. NATs?

2) Usually documents that obsolete another rfc have a "changes from RFCXXXX" section. Not sure if this is needed in this case when you move from experimental to proposed stanadard but given the rather larger number of changes, I would find it helpful.

3) I believe reading would be easier for me if section 4 would have been first but not sure...

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.)

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Parameter Types subregistry of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/

the existing Parameter Type of 'LOCATOR' (value 193) should be renamed to 'LOCATOR_SET' and the reference should be updated from RFC5206 to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the Notify Message Types subregistry also in the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/

The existing Notify Message Type of 'LOCATOR_TYPE_UNSUPPORTED' (value 46) should have its reference updated from RFC5206 to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, "Gonzalo Camarillo" , hip-chairs@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Host Mobility with the Host Identity Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'Host Mobility with the Host Identity Protocol'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines mobility extensions to the Host Identity
  Protocol (HIP).  Specifically, this document defines a general
  "LOCATOR_SET" parameter for HIP messages that allows for a HIP host
  to notify peers about alternate addresses at which it may be reached.
  This document also defines elements of procedure for mobility of a
  HIP host -- the process by which a host dynamically changes the
  primary locator that it uses to receive packets.  While the same
  LOCATOR_SET parameter can also be used to support end-host
  multihoming, detailed procedures are out of scope for this document.
  This document obsoletes RFC 5206.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc5206: End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol (Experimental - IETF stream)
    rfc5204: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension (Experimental - IETF stream)
    rfc5203: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension (Experimental - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.

PROTO Writeup: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Proposed Standard, as indicated on the title page header (i.e.,
  Standards Track). This document is intended to obsolete RFC 5206,
  which was an Experimental RFC.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document defines mobility extensions to the Host Identity
  Protocol (HIP).  Specifically, this document defines a general
  "LOCATOR_SET" parameter for HIP messages that allows for a HIP host
  to notify peers about alternate addresses at which it may be
  reached.  This document also defines elements of procedure for
  mobility of a HIP host -- the process by which a host dynamically
  changes the primary locator that it uses to receive packets.  While
  the same LOCATOR_SET parameter can also be used to support end-host
  multihoming, detailed procedures are out of scope for this document.
  This document obsoletes RFC 5206.


Working Group Summary:

  There was WG consensus behind this document.


Document Quality:

  As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the
  Experimental HIP specs. At least HIP for Linux and OpenHIP will be
  updated to comply with the new standards-track specs like this one.


Personnel:

  Gonzalo Camarillo is the documetn shepherd. Terry Manderson is the
  responsible area director.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd reviewed revision 11 of this document, which
  was ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.
 

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No.
 

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  No concerns.
 

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.
 

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  The whole WG understands the document and agree with it. Note that
  this is the revision of an existing RFC (i.e., a bis document).


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.
 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

  The document contains no nits.
 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No formal reviews are needed.
 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.
 

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.
 

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.
 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  Yes, it will obsolete RFC 5206. This fact is discussed on the title
  page header and on the Abstract.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

  The IANA Considerations Section is complete and consistent.
 

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new experts are required.
 

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  No such checks were needed.