Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Multi-Hop Routing Extension
draft-ietf-hip-via-03

I think that this document (and the other hip documents) need to included a short explanation of the reasons for which the WG was chartered to issue Experimental RFCs, what kind of experimentation should be planned for the protocol extension, what are the expected results, and whether there are deployment concerns or limitations that need to be taken into consideration by operators. If this information can be found in some other hip document a reference would be fine.

Consider adding a pointer to the discussion of fragmentation in the primary HIP draft.

  Please consider the the editorial comments raised by Gen-ART Review
  by Ben Campbell on 2010-06-11:

  -- General: IDNITS turns up some outdated references and boilerplate
     questions.  Please check.

  -- Section 1, para 2, "HIP BONE": Please expand on first mention.

  -- Section 1, last paragraph: I'm not sure we can assume the reader
     knows what you mean by "customary sections."

  -- Section 3.2.2, para 3, last sentence, "Given that each operation
     requires the attacker to generate a new key pair, the attack is
     completely impractical":  It would be better to avoid hyperbole
     when describing the practicality of an attack. Perhaps something
     to the effect of "impractical with current technology and
     techniques"?

  -- Section 3.4, para 2, last sentence, "with such straightforward
     approach":  Missing article.

  -- Section 5.1, para 2, "The enrollment server of an overlay that
     were to use HITs derived from public keys as Node IDs could just
     authorize users to use the public keys and HITs associated to
     their nodes.":  I have trouble parsing the first part of the
     sentence, around "that were to use".

  -- Section 5.3, para 1, "Nodes in an overlay need to establish
     connection with other nodes":  Connections (singular/plural
     mismatch)

  -- Section 5.5, para before last bullet list, "It is assumed that
     areas not covered by a particular HIP BONE instance specification
     are specified by the peer protocol or elsewhere.":  This seems
     more a requirement than an assumption.

  -- Section 6.1,"[ TBD by IANA; 980 ]":  Does this mean IANA has
     already picked the number? Or is it a recommended number?
     (Pattern repeats for other registrations.)

Please ensure that the changes prompted by Catherine Meadows secdir are incorporated!