Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status

Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Tue, 28 October 2014 16:50 UTC

Message-ID: <544FC7E9.50301@tomh.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:44:25 -0700
From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
References: <20140905182558.7340.5516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <540A04E3.2040203@tomh.org> <9BFCB5CC-FD77-49C2-9A67-39AEB45530D1@nominum.com> <540B2A2E.9040905@tomh.org> <540C3EB0.2000004@gmail.com> <5416CF8D.1070707@ericsson.com> <5417C8A2.9070800@tomh.org> <544FA19B.8030306@cs.hut.fi>
In-Reply-To: <544FA19B.8030306@cs.hut.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/3xC30WVHrCrXPAHv3BmmECB4Lzg
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status
Precedence: list

On 10/28/2014 07:00 AM, Miika Komu wrote:

>
> I wrote a checksum generator, and I have independently verified that the
> checksums in RFC5201-bis are correct.
>

Miika, thank you for checking this.

This leaves one open issue, regarding the clarifications to 
HIT_SUITE_LIST.  I originally put a diff proposal here:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre.diff

This proposal drew one review on the list from Rene, who suggested the 
following:

1) swap the encoding of the HIT Suite IDs to use the lower four-order 
bits instead of the higher four-order bits

2) fix an editorial reference to “HMAC parameter” -> “HIP_MAC and 
HIP_MAC_2 parameters” (or RHASH function).

3) change one of the proposed 'should' words to 'SHOULD'

While I am sympathetic to Rene's argument in 1), no one else has 
supported this change on the list, so given the late stage of this 
document, I would suggest to keep the encoding as is.  The changes 
proposed in 2) and 3) are editorial, in my view, so I don't see a 
problem to accept them.

I regenerated the diff according to Rene's suggestions, and posted it here:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre-2.diff

So in summary, I would like to now convey to our AD that we have a diff 
to the version -19 draft that is editorial/clarification in nature, and 
ask whether and how it can be handled procedurally, such as:

- publish a -20 and revisit some of the reviews (since version -19 was 
officially reviewed and approved, I don't know what it means to now post 
a -20 version)
- avoid publishing a -20 and handle these changes similar to AUTH48 changes
- scrap the diff and just publish version -19

Our AD can let us know how he prefers to handle it.

- Tom

[Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-1… internet-drafts
[Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Ted Lemon
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Taylor
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Gonzalo Camarillo
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Jari Arkko
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Jari Arkko
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Miika Komu
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Tom Henderson
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Ted Lemon
Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status Gonzalo Camarillo