Subject: [Hipsec] RFC5204-bis open issues?

From: Tom Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:31:45 -0800

I noticed that the draft for RFC5204-bis (rendezvous extension) was 
recently refreshed, and was wondering what the remaining open issues are 
for this draft?

I know of only one, which is a longstanding question of whether we want 
to cover RVS relaying of UPDATE messages in this specification.

https://tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/1

Some choices appear to be:

* do not support double jump in these specifications, leaving it for 
further study
* add specification in RFC5204-bis that refers to UPDATE relaying
* add specification in RFC5206-bis that refers to UPDATE relaying

- Tom

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 20:49:05 +0200

Hi Tom,

> * add specification in RFC5206-bis that refers to UPDATE relaying

I suggest the third option (unless Julien wants to write it in RFC5204). 
Besides UPDATE relaying, we need also some text for the other side, 
i.e., the registered host moves and updates its registration.