Subject: [Hipsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:11:55 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss points and most of my other comments. I
believe the following comments from my previous ballot are still valid:

I agree with other ADs that it is not clear to me why this mechanism is needed
in addition RFC5770. This is a use case for ICE and I would think that re-using
existing code and library would make implementation easier, faster and less
error-prone. I especially agree to the comments from Adam!

Other comments:

4) sec 4.8: "When a host does not receive
   acknowledgments, e.g., to an UPDATE or CLOSE packet after a timeout
   based on local policies, a host SHOULD resend the packet through the
   associated Data Relay Server of the peer (if the peer listed it in
   its LOCATOR_SET parameter in the base exchange."
I did not really find anything about this in section 5.10 of RFC5770. In think
the timeout needs to be further specified.