Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items

Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com> Fri, 14 December 2012 12:43 UTC

Message-ID: <50CB1ED5.2040103@nomadiclab.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:43:01 +0200
From: Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tobias Heer <heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de>, Samu Varjonen <samu.varjonen@helsinki.fi>
References: <4FE96F9F.3090800@ericsson.com> <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BD324E110@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FEA1876.900@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <CAE_dhjveQ6WVVE3BVKk2txfBxNhfWvjbz+QVU2P919dNZ1WO4A@mail.gmail.com> <5012C05B.6080203@nomadiclab.com> <CAE_dhjufW+ic-VaBtqs787jK=xxy_XxnegpgGEtmpjZHsmJ4nA@mail.gmail.com> <505C213F.6050701@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <505C213F.6050701@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items
Precedence: list

So, what's blocking the progress on this is the lack of STD track CERT 
draft.

Samu and Tobi, would you have cycles to move your experimental track 
CERT RFC into STD track draft? I guess not much (or anything except the 
category?) need to be changed from the current RFC doc.


Cheers,
Ari


On 9/21/12 11:11 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> my take on this is that we need to produce a standards-track document
> specifying exactly that. This is what our charter says about it:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/hip/charter/
>
>> o Specify in a standards track RFC how to carry certificates in the
>> base exchange. This was removed from the base HIP spec so that the
>> mechanism is specified in a stand-alone spec.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 21/09/2012 2:49 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Julien,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/6/12 3:37 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - 5203bis (registration) can IMHO be republished as is as I haven't
>>>> seen any issue with the original version. If people agree I could
>>>> republish it and we could WGLC it...
>>>
>>>
>>> I posted some comments about 5203bis earlier this year but back then there
>>> was no discussion regarding them. So, here goes again.
>>>
>>> Some of these have been discussed also earlier on this list (these relate to
>>> requirements discovered with the native NAT traversal draft [1]), but I'll
>>> have them all here for easier reference.
>>>
>>> Currently, the registrar has no way of indicating that it would otherwise
>>> accept the registration, but it's currently running low on resources. For
>>> this purpose, a failure type "Insufficient resources" could be added to the
>>> "registration failure types".
>>>
>>> Registration using authentication with certificates could be part of the
>>> registration RFC. Currently, only authentication with HI is defined, but
>>> knowing all HIs beforehand is not practical in many cases.
>>>
>>> Text in section 3.2. of [1] could be used as a basis for this (just replace
>>> "HIP' data relay" with "registrar"). Also, if this authentication mode is
>>> added to the draft, failure type "Invalid certificate" should be added for
>>> the failure case.
>>>
>>> Should we have these in the registration draft?
>>>
>>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal
>>
>> I was going to shamelessly copy/paste section 3.2 of [1] in the
>> registration draft but I noticed that [1] actually has a normative
>> dependency on RFC 6253 "Host Identity Protocol Certificates" which is
>> Experimental. Thus adding the support for certificates to a standard
>> track HIP registration would cause a so-called downref which could be
>> problematic...
>>
>> Gonzalo - what is your take on this?
>>
>> --julien
>>
>

[Hipsec] Status of WG items Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Henderson, Thomas R
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Tobias Heer
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Julien Laganier
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Henderson, Thomas R
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Ari Keranen
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Robert Moskowitz
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Ari Keranen
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Julien Laganier
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Ari Keranen
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Julien Laganier
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Julien Laganier
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Henderson, Thomas R
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Miika Komu
[Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Julien Laganier
Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Miika Komu
Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items Ari Keranen
Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Ari Keranen
Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Henderson, Thomas R
Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Miika Komu
Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Samu Varjonen
Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Status of WG items Ari Keranen