Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-02-26
Requested 2018-02-12
Authors Robert Moskowitz , Miika Komu
I-D last updated 2018-05-10
Completed reviews Rtgdir Telechat review of -19 by Dan Frost (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -19 by Will (Shucheng) LIU (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Sean Turner (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -19 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Will (Shucheng) LIU
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 19 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready
Completed 2018-05-10
Hi all,

(Sorry , it seems to me that the notification was blocked by the filter. I
guess it's a little bit late.)

I have reviewed draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19 as part of the Operational
directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by
the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the
operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last
call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors
and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call

“This memo describes a new namespace, the Host Identity namespace, and
   a new protocol layer, the Host Identity Protocol, between the
   internetworking and transport layers.  Herein are presented the
   basics of the current namespaces, their strengths and weaknesses, and
   how a new namespace will add completeness to them.  The roles of this
   new namespace in the protocols are defined.

   This document obsoletes RFC 4423 and addresses the concerns raised by
   the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility.  It incorporates
   lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201 and goes further
   to explain how HIP works as a secure signaling channel.”

My overall view of the document is 'Ready' for publication.

Some small ones:

1. Especially, I am glad to see the security consideration part well explained.
I guess it's still worth writing something about the security tradeoff
influence for the different modes mentioned in previous sections. In fact,
there are some words in previous sections, maybe a summary can be put here.

2. It's good to have a single subsection about " Answers to NSRG questions".
However, maybe it's better to put it in appendix?

Will (Shucheng LIU)