Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-28
Requested 2015-12-15
Authors Julien Laganier
I-D last updated 2015-12-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff)
Intdir Early review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Intdir Early review of -07 by Zhen Cao (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2015-12-21
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 

Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 

you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date:2015–12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2015–12-28
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC 

with small nits to be corrected.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

* The document seems to imply/assume that a DNS query has multiple 

question sections with different QTYPEs. At least the exmaples in lines 

226 and 278 make me read so. I wonder whether this is actually the 

intention. If not, reword/edit accordingly to avoid the confusion. This 

is to avoid known issues when QDCOUNT>1 or have a justification to do so.

* Section 5 and the assiciated HIP RR figure mostly mentions public key 

but not HI anymore. For the clarity I would suggest adding text that the 

public key is the HI as well.

Nits/editorial comments:

* IDnits complains on outdated reference: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 

but this can be corrected e.g., by the RFC Editor.

* Line 97: s/address\(es\)/addresses

* Line 162: s/obtain/obtains

* Line 163: s/initiate/initiates

* The document sometime uses "initiator" instead of "Initiator" e.g., in 

line 173. Suggest always using "Initiator" when meaning the HIP Initiator.

* API is never expanded.

* Sentence between lines 204-206 is somewhat hard to parse. Suggest 


* Line 201: "HIP node (R)" probably means Responder. Suggest actually 

stating that.