Basic Socket Interface Extensions for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
draft-ietf-hip-native-api-12

[Ballot discuss]
This is a minor discuss, but the security considerations should really include a statement
like

  This document describes an API for HIP and therefore depends on the mechanisms
  defined in the HIP protocol suite.  Security considerations associated with HIP
  itself are specified in [RFC4423], [RFC5201], [RFC5205] and [RFC5338].

[Ballot discuss]
The draft has normative references to draft-ietf-btns-c-api, which is
currently expired. It's not clear that the energy needed to finish
it exists -- but that would leave this draft forever stuck in the
RFC editor queue.

Is it fine to wait until btns-c-api is done? Or is this reference
really normative?

[Ballot comment]
GEN-ART review comments:

    * From: Ben Campbell
    * Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:59:33 -0600

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-hip-native-api-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-11-30
IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-03
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I have a small number of editorial comments that might be worth addressing if there is a new version prior to publication.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

--Section  1, paragraph 3:
Please expand ORCHID on first mention.


-- Section 1, paragraph 4:
Please expand LSI on first mention.

-- Section 4.2, first paragraph after figure 3:

Am I correct in assuming the EAI_FAMILY error only happens if the ai_family field was set to AF_HIP? That is, it would not make sense for AF_UNSPEC? The paragraph structure makes it looks like it applies to both.

-- idnits returns the following, which I include without prejudice:

> idnits 2.11.15
>
> tmp/draft-ietf-hip-native-api-09.txt:
>
>  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  == The document has an IETF Trust Provisions (12 Sep 2009) Section 6.c(i)
>      Publication Limitation clause.
>
>
>  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      No issues found here.
>
>  Miscellaneous warnings:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  == Line 393 has weird spacing: '... struct    soc...'
>
>  == Line 395 has weird spacing: '... struct    add...'
>
>  == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
>      first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the disclaimer?
>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- however,
>      there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
>
>
>  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
>      draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-09
>
>  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-shim6-proto has been published as RFC 5533
>
>
>      Summary: 0 errors (**), 6 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
>
>      Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
>      the items above.

[Ballot comment]
Per
http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/
ORCHIDs currently have a default sunset in 2014:

2001:10::/28    ORCHID      21 Mar 07        21 Mar 14        Overlay      See RFC            Not Routed    [RFC4843]

Should this document ask an implementor to check to see if that's been
updated? (What will maintenance of the stream look like if something unexpected happens and this ORCHID assignment is not renewed?)

[Ballot comment]
Acronyms used ahead of section 2.
LSI
HIP (Expanded in second paragraph of section 1; used in first paragraph)

---

Acronyms used without expansion
FQDN
RR
HI

---

Might be nice to describe the "experiment" in a little more detail. In
particular, how will you judge the success of the experiment?

---

Figure 2
Stray character at the start of the ship_hit line.

[Ballot comment]
A good document. Some examples would be nice though.

Also:

10.  Normative References

  [I-D.ietf-btns-c-api]
              Richardson, M., Williams, N., Komu, M., and S. Tarkoma,
              "C-Bindings for IPsec Application Programming Interfaces",
              draft-ietf-btns-c-api-04 (work in progress), March 2009.

  [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto]
              Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
              Shim Protocol for IPv6", draft-ietf-shim6-proto-12 (work
              in progress), February 2009.

The above references look Informative to me.

[Ballot comment]
10.  Normative References

  [I-D.ietf-btns-c-api]
              Richardson, M., Williams, N., Komu, M., and S. Tarkoma,
              "C-Bindings for IPsec Application Programming Interfaces",
              draft-ietf-btns-c-api-04 (work in progress), March 2009.

  [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto]
              Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
              Shim Protocol for IPv6", draft-ietf-shim6-proto-12 (work
              in progress), February 2009.

The above references look Informative to me.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Gonzalo Camarillo who believes the document is
ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes, the document has been appropriately reviewed..

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

The document represents a strong consensus among the individuals who are
active in the WG.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document satisfies ID nits.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document only has normative references. Two of them are still in a
draft state.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document has a null IANA Considerations Section.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

The C-based definitions in the document are correct.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

This document defines extensions to the current sockets API for the
Host Identity Protocol (HIP). The extensions focus on the use of
public-key based identifiers discovered via DNS resolution, but
define also interfaces for manual bindings between HITs and locators.
With the extensions, the application can also support more relaxed
security models where the communication can be non-HIP based,
according to local policies. The extensions in this document are
experimental and provide basic tools for further experimentation with
policies.

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

Nothing worth mentioning.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?

Currently, there are no implementations of this specification but there
are plans to implement it.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?

Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Ralph Droms is the
responsible AD.