Subject: [Hipsec] comments on the WGLC drafts

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:17:53 -0700

I read through them this weekend again and think they are in good shape
to move forward.  A few minor points below to add to the final "issues"
list:

Base draft
----------
Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are incomplete

There is a missing reference for Sigma in the Abstract and section 1.2.
It should be:
Hugo Krawczyk: SIGMA: The 'SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to Authenticated
Diffie-Hellman and Its Use in the IKE-Protocols. CRYPTO 2003: 400-425

Section 11-- I have some question as to how these references should be
cited.  Do we need normative and informative in an experimental spec?
Also, what to do about dependencies on drafts that are not yet
published and may lag these documents (e.g., BEET draft referenced in
the
ESP document)?

Appendices A and B probably can be deleted at this time, or edited
(perhaps combined into a combined informative appendix "Probabilities
on certain HIP computations".  At the very least, Appendix B reads like
it was copied and pasted from an email message and should be edited.

Appendix E will need revised once IANA considerations are settled.

ESP draft
---------
the last paragraph of 3.2 should point to appendix A

is a Section 5.3.3 needed showing the typical third (UPDATE ACK) packet?

in 6.1, step 3, it may be helpful to state that it is not just
having proper IP addresses but also proper IP header format for
the IP addresses in use (i.e., IPv4 or IPv6).

section 6.2, step 4-- typically, IP headers are not passed to the
application, so I suggest deleting this step, or else rewording if
something else was intended

section 7, suggest telling the reader that the "g" and "l" subscripts
are defined in the base spec

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