[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-native-api-09-pre
> So, the 128-bit reserved field cannot really be used for
> extending the size of the HIT and we really need a completely new
> structure for them?
OK, I overlooked the 128-bit ship_reserved field. Yes it seems like we
need a new structure; right now we're considering 256-bit HITs but what
about 512, 1024, etc.?
> Jeff, what do you think about this? Are the associate
> problems now more
> clear? I think it's important to get this right.
will larger HITs share the same prefix as existing 128-bit HITs?
if we have different prefixes, API calls can use sockaddr with
sa_family=AF_HIP and we can inspect the prefix to determine the bitsize;
this is a departure from the sa_family alone determining the size of the
structure
> Should we actually have a function/macro called HIP_IS_HIT()? Or just
> add a flag as you suggested to avoid each application to
> hard-code their own macros for this? What do you think?
Yes I think this HIP_IS_HIT() macro would be helpful.
> > why is HIP_HIT_ANY_TMP used for anonymous identifiers?
> maybe it should be named HIP_HIT_ANY_ANON or HIP_HIT_ANY_NOPUB?
>
> To align it with RFC5014 constants. Do you think ANON would
> be more clear?
The _TMP is OK, makes sense to align with RFC 5014 terminology.
> Yes and I was asking also what should the actual error value be (pick
> one from /usr/include/asm-generic/errno.h)? It could be also
> ETIMEDOUT
> because the peer failed to respond with an R1. Or in the case of
> hiccups, there was no response from the transport layer...
>
> In comparison, it seems like SCTP API just typically ignores errno
> issues with "the variable errno is then set appropriately":
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-19
I think that Tom's suggested text addresses this with the "set errno
appropriately" language.
-Jeff