Subject: [Hipsec] draft status for RFC5201-bis

From: Tom Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:53:12 -0700

Hi all, I posted some initial issues back on June 28:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03873.html

and we had some discussion on the list that I believe resolved (or 
nearly resolved) three of the four issues.

One that I feel is still open without strong consensus expressed is the 
issue of whether HIP is subject to certain plaintext attacks.  There was 
some discussion in the thread about it.  I opened issue 42 to track it:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/42

There are a few other comments that have been received during the IESG 
review.  The questions are posted here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis/ballot/

Barry Leiba pointed out a number of problems with how our IANA section 
is written, and I had some discussion with him and also with IANA about 
what is needed here, so I will take a stab at this in the next revision. 
  Issue 44 in the tracker is open for this:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/44

Brian Haberman raised some questions about changes to the R1_COUNTER; I 
will go back to the archives on this and try to answer them.

Pete Resnick has asked us to provide more rationale/justification for 
use of the TCP Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) in the draft.

Stephen Farrell has posted a number of questions that are probably best 
served by starting a separate thread or threads.

IETF draft submission is closed until the 21st, but I plan to post an 
update shortly after it reopens.

- Tom