Subject: [Hipsec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 06:42:39 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19: 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-rfc4423-bis/

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

A few minor high-level comments/questions:

1) To me it feels that sec 11 doesn't really belong in this bis doc. Maybe that
is rather an own report or can just go in the appendix?

2) Should this document maybe discuss connection migration as used by QUIC as
an alternative (based on short term connection identifiers instead of course)?
Background: to provide identities between two endpoints, I'd say that TLS is
sufficient or even the more appropriate solution. However, this document does
not talk very much about cases where the identify of other IP hosts (not
endpoints) is important. Oft course it covers the mobility use case but that
also seems less relevant with migration support in QUIC.