Subject: [Hipsec] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:18:50 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My review was based on the diff vs. 5206 [1], and turned
up nothing new of note:-) Seems like a reasonable update
to me.

I do however agree about the privacy issue raised by Mirja
wrt exposing locators. It is worth noting that, so that
implementers have it flagged that they need to consider
that - not doing so caused quite a fuss for WebRTC so
better to not repeat that.

   [1]
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc5206&url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13.txt