Hi Will, On 5/10/18 12:16, Will LIU wrote: > Reviewer: Will LIU > Review result: Ready > > Hi all, > > (Sorry , it seems to me that the notification was blocked by the filter. I > guess it's a little bit late.) no it's not! It's me who is running late. > I have reviewed draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19 as part of the Operational > directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the > operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last > call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors > and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > “This memo describes a new namespace, the Host Identity namespace, and > a new protocol layer, the Host Identity Protocol, between the > internetworking and transport layers. Herein are presented the > basics of the current namespaces, their strengths and weaknesses, and > how a new namespace will add completeness to them. The roles of this > new namespace in the protocols are defined. > > This document obsoletes RFC 4423 and addresses the concerns raised by > the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility. It incorporates > lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201 and goes further > to explain how HIP works as a secure signaling channel.” > > My overall view of the document is 'Ready' for publication. thanks! > Some small ones: > > 1. Especially, I am glad to see the security consideration part well explained. > I guess it's still worth writing something about the security tradeoff > influence for the different modes mentioned in previous sections. In fact, > there are some words in previous sections, maybe a summary can be put here. I added one line quick summary to the abstract: [...] The section on security considerations describe also measures against flooding attacks, usage of identities in access control lists, weaker types of identifiers and trust on first use. [...] Does this address your concern? > 2. It's good to have a single subsection about " Answers to NSRG questions". > However, maybe it's better to put it in appendix? it's already in appendix (due to other review comments). Thanks for the feedback!
