Samu Varjonen wrote:
Hi,
Mattes, David kirjoitti:
Hi Samu,
As some background, I am focused on using HIP operationally and
therefore have a pragmatic point of view of the specifications. Here
are some in-line opinions for your questions below.
Also, what is the purpose of requiring the HIT as part of the X.509
information? In practice (at least until HIP is a de-facto standard
;-), I think it will be quite difficult to convince Certificate
issuers to include new or different information. I think you should
remove that recommendation from the draft.
We do not want to enforce all certificates to have HITs encoded as
subjects and/or issuers. It is there if you need to encode HITs. I
will rephrase the text to clearly state this.
does the HIT have problems with the planned algo agility mechanism
described in here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02661.html