Subject: [Hipsec] Ben Campbell's Abstain on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 19:05:18 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: Abstain

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-native-nat-traversal/

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

I support all points of Ekr's discuss and comment points. I think this either
needs to use ICE mostly as is (maybe with some minor profiling) or it needs to
be self-contained here. I understand the material in appendix B, but the
current mix seems untenable for implementors. Therefore I am balloting
"abstain".  I will reconsider that position if there is a substantial
reorganization.

Substantive Comments:

I share Alissa's question about why this is standard track when the previous
work has been experimental.

§1, second paragraph: The citation for the version of ICE used by "legacy
ICE-HIP" should be RFC5245, not the bis version.

§2: There are a number of lower-case keywords. Please use the RFC 8174
boilerplate.

§4.2:
- paragraph 5: Is everything in this paragraph from the ICE specification? I
suspect not, but it's hard to tease out what is from ICE and what is new
specification. It would be helpful to reference the ICE bits by section number.
- paragraph 6: I'm confused in that I thought the previous text said that
native ICE-HIP does not use STUN.

§6: I am skeptical of the assertion that the security considerations for Native
ICE-HIP are no different than those for Legacy ICE-HIP.

Editorial Comments:

§1, 2nd paragraph:
- "responsible of NAT traversal": s/of/to
- "responsible of end-host": s/of/to

§4.3: "This section describes the usage of a new non-critical parameter type.
": Which is?

§4.6, first paragraph: 2nd sentence is hard to parse.