Subject: RE: [Hipsec] WGLC draft-ietf-hip-registration-00.txt

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:47:52 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:43 AM
> To: HIP
> Cc: Lars Eggert; [email-masked]; Julien Laganier
> Subject: [Hipsec] WGLC draft-ietf-hip-registration-00.txt
> 
> Folks,
> 
> we would like to working group last call the following draft. 
> This working group last call will end on November 6th.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-registration-00.txt
> 
> Send your comments to this list.
> 
> Note that Jari's comments on this draft will be taken as WGLC 
> comments.
> 

The first citation in the introduction should probably refer to the base
spec, not the architecture.

In section 5, I don't know where 10 and 120 seconds (MUST minimum and
SHOULD maximum registration lifetimes, respectively) come from, nor why
such values need to be specified now.

Otherwise, I don't have further comments and support going forward with
it.

Tom

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:09:42 -0800

> such values need to be specified now.

IMHO, there is value in defining them; they set a baseline for  
expectations.  That as a goal, I tried to come up with sensible  
defaults, once that are not too long nor too short.  We also tried to  
take care of NAT considerations, having defaults that would probably  
play nicely with existing timeouts in NATs.  The ones chosen looked  
like reasonable values.  The minimum seemed more important to me; if  
there is no guarantee of a minimum, you may have hard time in  
developing any systems based upon the registration system.

Maybe add a sentence or two explaining the above?

--Pekka