Subject: [Hipsec] Arch Issue #2: Editorial comments from Tom Hendersson

From: [email-masked] (Pekka Nikander)
Date: Wed Oct 8 10:19:01 2003

Tom has sent the following editorial comments.  I agree
with them, and will apply them unless someone objects or
has better suggestions.

Section 5.1

Old text:

    HIP need not rely on Dynamic DNS for this function, but
    uses a rendezvous server

New text:

    Although Dynamic DNS could be used for this function for
    infrequently moving nodes, an alternative to using DNS in
    this fashion is to use a piece of static infrastructure
    called a HIP rendezvous server.

Section 8.1, question 6:

Old text:

    It is possible to use HIP opportunistically, without any
    infrastructure.  However, to gain full benefit from HIP,
    the Host Identifiers must be stored in the DNS, ...

New text:

    It is possible to use HIP opportunistically, without any
    infrastructure.  However, to gain full benefit from HIP,
    the Host Identifiers must be stored in the DNS or a PKI, ...

    (the phrase "or a PKI" was added)

Section 9, paragraph 3:

Old text:

   HIP both allows to increase the cost...

New text:

   HIP allows a responder to increase the cost...

--Pekka Nikander

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott W Brim)
Date: Wed Oct 8 10:36:01 2003

Much better all around imho.  ...Scott