The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication' <draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-04.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13741&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Mark Townsley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-04.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary Technical Summary The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) changes the way in which two Internet hosts communicate. One key advantage over other schemes is that HIP does not require modifications to the traditional network-layer functionality of the Internet; i.e., its routers. In the current Internet, however, many devices other than routers modify the traditional network-layer behavior of the Internet. These "middleboxes" are intermediary devices that perform functions other than the standard functions of an IP router on the datagram path between source and destination hosts. Whereas some types of middleboxes may not interfere with HIP at all, some can affect some aspects of HIP communication, and others can render HIP communication impossible. This document discusses the problems associated with HIP communication across network paths that include specific types of middleboxes; namely, network address translators and firewalls. It identifies and discusses issues in the current HIP specifications that affect communication across these types of middleboxes. IESG Note "This RFC is a product of the Internet Research Task Force and is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and development activities. These results might not be suitable for deployment." RFC Editor's note: draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt says in section '2.1. Research Group Preparation': The document should have a statement in the abstract identifying the document as the product of the RG and a paragraph in the first section describing the level of support for the document (e.g., "this document represents the consensus of the FOOBAR RG", "the views in this document were considered controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that the document should still be published") and the breadth of review for the document. The abstract of this document does not contain any of this. Please see other Comments from the IESG review in the Tracker. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
