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 Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-02-26
Requested 2018-02-12
Authors Robert Moskowitz , Miika Komu
I-D last updated 2018-02-27
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 Sean Turner
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 19 (document currently at 20)
Result Has nits
Completed 2018-02-27
This is a bis draft of the HIP (Host Identity Protocol) Architecture and
because of that I focused on what’s changed (i.e., I reviewed the diffs from 
It’s still HIP but with a slightly expanded scope; it’s still Informational.

1. s4: The one place where I’ll step out from not looking at the old is a
similar-ish recommendation that was in the RF4423:

   In this document, the non-cryptographic forms of HI and HIP are
   presented to complete the theory of HI, but they should not be
   implemented as they could produce worse denial-of-service attacks
   than the Internet has without Host Identity.

Should the should not be a SHOULD NOT?

2. (none security) s4.4: Is the paragraph about IPv4 vs IPv6 vs LSI really
necessary?  I.e., is this yet another thing that folks are going to use to not
transition to IPv6?

3. s11.2: Isn’t an additional drawback the need to have a HIP-aware firewall?