Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-01

[Varjonen Samu <samu.varjonen at hiit.fi>]

Hi,

This is a resend for the mail concerning the new version of the hip-cert 
draft. We got only answer to the mail earlier. We would appreciate if 
people could read the draft and give us comments.

Thans, Samu

Varjonen Samu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-cert-01.txt
>
> This new version of the draft brings editorial changes to the group 
> handling and clarifications to the usage of x.509 distinguished name 
> (DN) section.
>
> We would appreciate if people would read the draft and comment it.
>
> We have some additional discussion topics that we would like open. Main 
> point in these questions is to determine the direction where we should 
> take the draft.
>
> - Is the draft sufficient? Do we need to specify something more? Is 
> something important missing?
>
> -Is SPKI the right choice for the default format? X.509 is more widely 
> deployed and has better support vs. SPKI is simpler but has less support.
>
> -Are the hash and URL encodings needed? At least with on-path 
> middleboxes they are problematic.
>
> -Are the examples in the appendixes sufficient?
>
> One discussion topic that is a bit out of scope of hip-cert but is 
> relevant for HIP in general is fragmentation. I have brought this issue 
> up in several of the last meetings. Is there any interest in the group 
> to tackle this issue or should be just left for the IP and its 
> fragmentation to handle?
>
> BR,
> Samu
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec