NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication
RFC 5207

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <>
To: RFC Editor <>
Cc: The IESG <>, <>,
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'NAT and Firewall 
Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication' 
<draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-05.txt> as an Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Mark Townsley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary
   The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) changes the way in which two
   Internet hosts communicate.  One key advantage over other schemes
   is that HIP does not require modifications to the traditional
   network-layer functionality of the Internet; i.e., its routers.
   In the current Internet, however, many devices other than routers
   modify the traditional network-layer behavior of the Internet.
   These "middleboxes" are intermediary devices that perform functions
   other than the standard functions of an IP router on the datagram
   path between source and destination hosts.  Whereas some types of
   middleboxes may not interfere with HIP at all, some can affect some
   aspects of HIP communication, and others can render HIP
   communication impossible.  This document discusses the problems
   associated with HIP communication across network paths that include
   specific types of middleboxes; namely, network address translators
   and firewalls.  It identifies and discusses issues in the current
   HIP specifications that affect communication across these types of

   "This RFC is a product of the Internet Research Task Force and
    is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  The
    IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and
    development activities.  These results might not be suitable
    for deployment."

RFC Editor's note:

draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt says in section '2.1.  Research Group

   The document should have a statement in the abstract identifying the
   document as the product of the RG and a paragraph in the first
   section describing the level of support for the document (e.g., "this
   document represents the consensus of the FOOBAR RG", "the views in
   this document were considered controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the
   RG reached a consensus that the document should still be published")
   and the breadth of review for the document. 

The abstract of this document does not contain any of this.

Please see other Comments from the IESG review in the Tracker.