Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28
review-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28-secdir-lc-wallace-2018-03-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 30)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-02-26
Requested 2018-02-12
Authors Ari Keränen, Jan Melen, Miika Komu
Draft last updated 2018-03-15
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
Assignment Reviewer Carl Wallace
State Completed
Review review-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28-secdir-lc-wallace-2018-03-15
Reviewed rev. 28 (document currently at 30)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2018-03-15

Review
review-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28-secdir-lc-wallace-2018-03-15

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

This document specifies a new Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal
mode for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). While I am not a HIP guy, it
seems ready for publication. It's well-written and the security
considerations section is thorough. The only bit that raised a question
was in section 4, which states "it should be noted that HIP version 2
[RFC7401 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7401>] instead of HIPv1 is
expected to be used with this NAT traversal mode". Earlier in the
document, it states the draft is based on HIPv2. Are there any
considerations worth noting in the cases where HIPv1 is used or should
section 4 be revised to require v2?