Subject: [hiprg] FW: IRSG review of draft-irtf-hip-experiment

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:15:47 -0700

Please see below Martin Stiemerling's IRSG review of the HIP Experiment draft.  We will address these comments on the list and, once all comments are addressed, will initiate an IRSG Poll on the revised document.

- Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [irsg] IRSG review of draft-irtf-hip-experiment

Dear all,

Here is my review of draft-irtf-hip-experiment-12. 

The draft is basically fine and it provides an excellent overview about the HIP experiments, their outcomes, and lessons learnt. 

There are a few nits:
- Section 1, Introduction:
The draft -12 dates May 2011, but the intro says it compiles data from 2004 to 2009. Wasn't there any further work until May 2011?
- Section 2.1, Figure 1:
It is not clear from the figure what is user space and what is kernel space. This doesn't match the text on page 7, bottom. This might be confusing to an average reader.
- Section 2.3.1, page 10, 1st paragraph:
s/4) a ad-hoc/4) an ad-hoc
- Section 2.3.1, page 11, paragraph starting with "Over time...":
I suggest to split this paragraph after "...1) and 3). I.e., starting "Implementing the first approach..." as a new paragraph.
- Section 2.4, page 16, 3rd paragraph:
The conclusion of the first sentence isn't that obvious for an average reader. It would be good to give a reference/hint why running IPv6 apps over IPv4 (and vice versa) is made possible by HIP. 
- Section 3.5, page 20, 3rd paragraph:
s/200 rps/200 requests per second/
- Section 5.4, page 24, paragraph starting with "A HIP-aware...":
The last sentence is not completely correct, as a change of the IP address may remove a firewall (or any other network entity) from the data packet path between source and destination. In this case, the firewall would not be able to learn any of the changes anymore. I suggest adding at the end of the sentence ", if still on the path."

  Martin

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014