Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Base draft & ESP draft: snapshots

From: Petri Jokela <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:17:35 +0300

A new pre-version of the ESP draft is now out:

draft-ietf-hip-esp-01-pre020905.*

http://hip4inter.net/drafts.php

Pekka Nikander wrote:
>> draft-ietf-hip-esp-01-pre150805
> More substantial:
> 
> I am a little bit worried about the BEET reference; it appears in a 
> pretty normative context even though it is listed as an informative 
> reference.  Consequently, I think it would be best to partially  rewrite
> 3.2.  First name it "Conceptual ESP packet processing", to  make it
> clearer that the text is more illustrative than normative.   Then take
> the last paragraph ("fully standards compatible IPsec") as  the starting
> point, and explain how packets are processed if that is  the case, and
> finally use BEET as a way to illustrate an alternative  way to implement
> it.  Section 6 appears to be fine from this point of  view.

I rewrote section 3.2. Please see if it is better now.

> This doesn't really matter, but I would find it slightly more  appealing
> if it was 4095...

I changed it. Implementors, please change it before next interop to
avoid extra confusion ;-)

/petri

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

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:45:11 +0200

> I rewrote section 3.2. Please see if it is better now.

Looks very good, thanks!

I'd remove the last sentence "This mode of operation ... ESP tunnel  
mode." as irrelevant and potentially confusing.

Minor comments:

hip-arch is now at -03.

[6] (hip-mm) should be informative to avoid normative dependency.   
The context of the reference is informative.

[7] is not referenced at all; could be removed?

is [10] (Schneier) really normative?

--Pekka

---

From: Petri Jokela <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:59:54 +0300

> mode." as irrelevant and potentially confusing.

Ok.

> hip-arch is now at -03.

I still have old xml reference files locally. I'll update them.

> [6] (hip-mm) should be informative to avoid normative dependency.   The
> context of the reference is informative.

Yes, true.

> [7] is not referenced at all; could be removed?

Yes, the algorithms are now in a separate draft.

> is [10] (Schneier) really normative?

The suite-IDs, defined in 5.1.2, are from [8] and [10]. If I remember
correctly, BLOWFISH was from Schneiner and rest of the suites were from
[8]. This is the reason why I put it as a normative reference.

/petri