Subject: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01

From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:53:20 -0800

Here are some comments after reviewing the HIP Architecture -bis draft...

Should RFC 5201 be referenced?
- the base exchange is discussed
- the table of terms in Section 2.2 could refer to 
  RFC 5201 under definition of base exchange
- ESP (5202), Rendezvous (5204), and DNS (5205) are listed as normative
  references, but 5201 is not referenced

Section 5.1 talks about moving Host Identities from one physical computer to
another without breaking transport associations. Really?

Section 6.1 mentions "HIP readdress packets"; earlier versions of the 
spec actually had readdress packets, but now it would be more precise to say
"HIP UPDATE packets"

Section 6.2 says "To close this attack, HIP includes..."
Could this better be phrased as "To close this attack vector" or 
"To prevent this type of attack"?

Section 6.2 last paragraph discusses skipping the address check;
CBA can also be used to reduce handover latency here?

Section 8.1 "HIP and TCP checksums" should be titled 
"HIP and Upper-layer checksums"?

This was briefly discussed on this list before [1]. 
Section 9 Multicast says:
"There was little if any concrete thoughts about how HIP might affect
 IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
This sentence made sense in conjunction with the RFC 4423 abstract:
"The memo describes the thinking of the authors as of Fall 2003."
...but without such text that sentence on multicast doesn't really
stand on its own.

Section 11.1 question 5 missing question mark at the end

-Jeff

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02799.html