Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 33)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2018-02-26
Requested 2018-02-12
Authors Ari Keränen, Jan Melen, Miika Komu
Draft last updated 2018-02-26
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -27 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -27 by Colin Perkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -27 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -28 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -28 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -30 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Colin Perkins 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27-tsvart-lc-perkins-2018-02-26
Reviewed rev. 27 (document currently at 33)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-02-26



I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@… if you reply to or forward this review.

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

This draft describes how the ICE algorithm can be applied for NAT traversal with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). The classical ICE algorithm is tied to STUN and TURN for connectivity checks, encapsulation, and tunnelling. This draft recasts ICE to work with HiP-specific mechanisms. The proposed mechanism looks to be a straight-forward reworking of ICE into this new context, and there do not look to be any significant new transport issues raised compared to classic ICE.

The draft could perhaps better explain the rationale for recasting the ICE protocol to use HIP specific mechanisms rather than reusing STUN and TURN. In addition, the reference to Appendix B (which explains the differences from classical ICE) at the end of the Introduction could perhaps be highlighted. Both would be useful to show why this mechanism is needed, and to clearly document the differences to classical ICE.

The draft doesn’t mention the impact on the MTU of encapsulating HIP messages for NAT traversal. It probably should discuss the implications of this MTU reduction.

Section 4.1, page 11, suggests the use of UDP port 10500. The IANA considerations do not register this port. The draft should either register this port, or clearly cite the draft/RFC that does register it.


Colin Perkins