Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:21:16 -0800

Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Almost Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2018-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:
The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. in section 4.2 "Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed by other means
than described in this section.  For example, the candidates could be
   gathered as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC5770] if STUN servers are
   available, or if the host has just a single interface and no STUN orData
   Relay Server are available." I did not see this a different ways since
   section 3 says "The hosts use either Control Relay Servers or Data Relay
   Servers (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers) for
   gathering the candidates." so STUN is mentioned also here.

2. In section 4.6.2 "The connectivity check messages MUST be paced by the Ta
value negotiated during the base exchange as described in Section 4.4.  If
neither one of the hosts announced a minimum pacing value, a value of  20 ms
SHOULD be used." in section 4.4 the default value is 50 ms?

3. in section 5.4 what about "ICE-STUN-UDP         2" ;  I assume it is not
relevant but this is also the IANA registeration

4. In section 5.5 "The TRANSACTION_PACING is a new parameter" it is not new it
is in RFC5770

5. In section 5.10 "SERVER_REFLEXIVE_CANDIDATE_ALLOCATION_FAILED  63" is the
only new one. this also relates to section 7 that says that all error values in
section 5.10 are new while the rest are in RFC5770. Also there is no mention in
section 7 of which registry is used for the error values.

Nits/editorial comments:
1. Expand SPI and LSI when first appear in the document

2. in section 2 "the base of an candidate" should be "a candidate"

3. In section 3 "so it is the Initiator may also have registered to a Control
and/or Data Relay Server" maybe "so  the Initiator may also need to register to
a Control and/or Data Relay Server"

4. In section 4.2 "However, it is RECOMMENDED that a Data Relay Client
registers a new server reflexive candidate for each its peer for the reasons
described" maybe "for each of its..."

5. In section 4.2 I could not parse the sentence "where Ta is the value used
for Ta is the value used for the"

6. in section 4.6 "as defined in section in 6.7 in [RFC7401]:"  change to "as
defined in section 6.7 in [RFC7401]:"