Thanks for your review, Colin.
I agree that fixes or better explanations of the background should be
given for the points that you raised. It seems that you and Hesham are
making progress on what needs to be added to the document, great!
The only item that I too am somewhat worried about in your list is the
address replacement by broken NATs and the tricks used to prevent that.
I feel that the best way to deal with that is to document this as a
potential problem -- the protocol already has tools to provide a far
better obfuscation technique than XOR -- just turn on encryption if this
turns out to be a problem and the device in question cannot be ripped
out of the network. Do we have any information about how widespread such
NATs might be? RFC 5389 just says "some NATs".
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf