idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 15, 2014) is 3747 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'TBD-IANA' is mentioned on line 410, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-33) exists of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-07 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5203 (Obsoleted by RFC 8003) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Laganier 3 Internet-Draft Luminate Wireless, Inc. 4 Obsoletes: 5203 (if approved) L. Eggert 5 Intended status: Standards Track NetApp 6 Expires: July 19, 2014 January 15, 2014 8 Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension 9 draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-04 11 Abstract 13 This document specifies a registration mechanism for the Host 14 Identity Protocol (HIP) that allows hosts to register with services, 15 such as HIP rendezvous servers or middleboxes. This document 16 obsoletes RFC5203. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2014. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 3. HIP Registration Extension Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3.1. Registrar Announcing Its Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3.2. Requester Requesting Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 3.3. Registrar Granting or Refusing Service(s) Registration . 4 58 4. Parameter Formats and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 4.1. Encoding Registration Lifetimes with Exponents . . . . . 6 60 4.2. REG_INFO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 4.3. REG_REQUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4.4. REG_RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 4.5. REG_FAILED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 5. Establishing and Maintaining Registrations . . . . . . . . . 10 65 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 74 1. Introduction 76 This document specifies an extension to the Host Identity Protocol 77 (HIP) [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis]. The extension provides a generic 78 means for a host to register with a service. The service may, for 79 example, be a HIP rendezvous server [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis] or a 80 middlebox [RFC3234]. 82 This document makes no further assumptions about the exact type of 83 service. Likewise, this document does not specify any mechanisms to 84 discover the presence of specific services or means to interact with 85 them after registration. Future documents may describe those 86 operations. 88 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 89 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 90 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 92 2. Terminology 94 In addition to the terminology defined in the HIP Architecture 95 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis], the HIP specification 96 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis], and the HIP Rendezvous Extension 98 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis], this document defines and uses the 99 following terms: 101 Requester: 102 a HIP node registering with a HIP registrar to request 103 registration for a service. 105 Registrar: 106 a HIP node offering registration for one or more services. 108 Service: 109 a facility that provides requesters with new capabilities or 110 functionalities operating at the HIP layer. Examples include 111 firewalls that support HIP traversal or HIP rendezvous servers. 113 Registration: 114 shared state stored by a requester and a registrar, allowing the 115 requester to benefit from one or more HIP services offered by the 116 registrar. Each registration has an associated finite lifetime. 117 Requesters can extend established registrations through re- 118 registration (i.e., perform a refresh). 120 Registration Type: 121 an identifier for a given service in the registration protocol. 122 For example, the rendezvous service is identified by a specific 123 registration type. 125 3. HIP Registration Extension Overview 127 This document does not specify the means by which a requester 128 discovers the availability of a service, or how a requester locates a 129 registrar. After a requester has discovered a registrar, it either 130 initiates HIP base exchange or uses an existing HIP association with 131 the registrar. In both cases, registrars use additional parameters, 132 which the remainder of this document defines, to announce their 133 quality and grant or refuse registration. Requesters use 134 corresponding parameters to register with the service. Both the 135 registrar and the requester MAY also include in the messages 136 exchanged additional HIP parameters specific to the registration type 137 implicated. Other documents will define parameters and how they 138 shall be used. The following sections describe the differences 139 between this registration handshake and the standard HIP base 140 exchange [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis]. 142 3.1. Registrar Announcing Its Ability 144 A host that is capable and willing to act as a registrar SHOULD 145 include a REG_INFO parameter in the R1 packets it sends during all 146 base exchanges. If it is currently unable to provide services due to 147 transient conditions, it SHOULD include an empty REG_INFO, i.e., one 148 with no services listed. If services can be provided later, it 149 SHOULD send UPDATE packets indicating the current set of services 150 available in a new REG_INFO parameter to all hosts it is associated 151 with. 153 3.2. Requester Requesting Registration 155 To request registration with a service, a requester constructs and 156 includes a corresponding REG_REQUEST parameter in an I2 or UPDATE 157 packet it sends to the registrar. 159 If the requester has no HIP association established with the 160 registrar, it SHOULD send the REG_REQUEST at the earliest 161 possibility, i.e., in the I2 packet. This minimizes the number of 162 packets that need to be exchanged with the registrar. A registrar 163 MAY end a HIP association that does not carry a REG_REQUEST by 164 including a NOTIFY with the type REG_REQUIRED in the R2. In this 165 case, no HIP association is created between the hosts. The 166 REG_REQUIRED notification error type is 51. 168 3.3. Registrar Granting or Refusing Service(s) Registration 170 Once registration has been requested, the registrar is able to 171 authenticate the requester based on the host identity included in I2. 173 If the registrar knows the Host Identities (HIs) of all the hosts 174 that are allowed to use the relaying service, it SHOULD reject 175 registrations from unknown hosts. However, since it may be 176 unfeasible to pre-configure the relay with all the HIs, the relay 177 SHOULD also support HIP certificates [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis] to 178 allow for certificate based authentication. 180 When a requester wants to register with a registrar, it SHOULD check 181 if it has a suitable certificate for authenticating with the 182 registrar. How the suitability is determined and how the 183 certificates are obtained is out of scope for this document. If the 184 requester has one or more suitable certificates, the host SHOULD 185 include them (or just the most suitable one) in a CERT parameter to 186 the HIP packet along with the REG_REQUEST parameter. If the 187 requester does not have any suitable certificates, it SHOULD send the 188 registration request without the CERT parameter to test whether the 189 registrar accepts the request based on the host's identity. 191 When a registrar receives a HIP packet with a REG_REQUEST parameter, 192 and it requires authentication for at least one of the Registration 193 Types listed in the REG_REQUEST parameter, it MUST first check 194 whether the HI of the requester is in the allowed list for all the 195 Registration Types in the REG_REQUEST parameter. If the requester is 196 in the allowed list (or the registrar does not require any 197 authentication), the registrar MUST proceed with the registration. 199 If the requester was not in the allowed list and the registrar 200 requires the requester to authenticate, the registrar MUST check 201 whether the packet also contains a CERT parameter. If the packet 202 does not contain a CERT parameter, the registrar MUST reject the 203 registrations requiring authentication with Failure Type 0 204 (Registration requires additional credentials). If the certificate 205 is valid and accepted (issued for the requester and signed by a 206 trusted issuer), the registrar MUST proceed with the registration. 207 If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar 208 MUST reject the corresponding registrations with Failure Type [IANA 209 TBD] (Invalid certificate). 211 After successful authorization, the registrar includes a REG_RESPONSE 212 parameter in its response, which contains the service type(s) for 213 which it has authorized registration, and zero or more REG_FAILED 214 parameters containing the service type(s) for which it has not 215 authorized registration or registration has failed for other reasons. 216 This response can be either an R2 or an UPDATE message, respectively, 217 depending on whether the registration was requested during the base 218 exchange, or using an existing association. In particular, 219 REG_FAILED with a failure type of zero indicates the service(s) 220 type(s) that require further credentials for registration. 222 If the registrar requires further authorization and the requester has 223 additional credentials available, the requester SHOULD try to 224 register again with the service after the HIP association has been 225 established. 227 Successful processing of a REG_RESPONSE parameter creates 228 registration state at the requester. In a similar manner, successful 229 processing of a REG_REQUEST parameter creates registration state at 230 the registrar and possibly at the service. Both the requester and 231 registrar can cancel a registration before it expires, if the 232 services afforded by a registration are no longer needed by the 233 requester, or cannot be provided any longer by the registrar (for 234 instance, because its configuration has changed). 236 +-----+ I1 +-----+-----+ 237 | |--------------------->| | S1 | 238 | |<---------------------| | | 239 | | R1(REG_INFO:S1,S2) | +-----+ 240 | RQ | | R | S2 | 241 | | I2(REG_REQ:S1) | | | 242 | |--------------------->| +-----+ 243 | |<---------------------| | S3 | 244 | | R2(REG_RESP:S1) | | | 245 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 247 A requester (RQ) registers with a registrar (R) of services (S1) and 248 (S2), with which it has no current HIP association. 250 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 251 | | UPDATE(REG_INFO:S) | | | 252 | |<---------------------| | | 253 | RQ |--------------------->| R | S | 254 | | UPDATE(REG_REQ:S) | | | 255 | | UPDATE(REG_RESP:S) | | | 256 | |<---------------------| | | 257 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 259 A requester (RQ) registers with a registrar (R) of services (S), with 260 which it currently has a HIP association established. 262 4. Parameter Formats and Processing 264 This section describes the format and processing of the new 265 parameters introduced by the HIP registration extension. 267 4.1. Encoding Registration Lifetimes with Exponents 269 The HIP registration uses an exponential encoding of registration 270 lifetimes. This allows compact encoding of 255 different lifetime 271 values ranging from 4 ms to 178 days into an 8-bit integer field. 272 The lifetime exponent field used throughout this document MUST be 273 interpreted as representing the lifetime value 2^((lifetime - 64)/8) 274 seconds. 276 4.2. REG_INFO 277 0 1 2 3 278 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 279 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 280 | Type | Length | 281 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 282 | Min Lifetime | Max Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | 283 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 284 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 285 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 286 | | 287 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 289 Type 930 290 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 291 Min Lifetime Minimum registration lifetime. 292 Max Lifetime Maximum registration lifetime. 293 Reg Type The registration types offered by the registrar. 295 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 296 See Section 7 for more information. 298 Registrars include the parameter in R1 packets in order to announce 299 their registration capabilities. The registrar SHOULD include the 300 parameter in UPDATE packets when its service offering has changed. 301 HIP_SIGNATURE_2 protects the parameter within the R1 packets. 303 4.3. REG_REQUEST 305 0 1 2 3 306 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 307 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 308 | Type | Length | 309 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 310 | Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 311 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 312 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 313 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 314 | | 315 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 317 Type 932 318 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 319 Lifetime Requested registration lifetime. 320 Reg Type The preferred registration types in order of preference. 322 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 323 See Section 7 for more information. 325 A requester includes the REG_REQUEST parameter in I2 or UPDATE 326 packets to register with a registrar's service(s). If the 327 REG_REQUEST parameter is in an UPDATE packet, the registrar MUST NOT 328 modify the registrations of registration types that are not listed in 329 the parameter. Moreover, the requester MUST NOT include the 330 parameter unless the registrar's R1 packet or latest received UPDATE 331 packet has contained a REG_INFO parameter with the requested 332 registration types. 334 The requester MUST NOT include more than one REG_REQUEST parameter in 335 its I2 or UPDATE packets, while the registrar MUST be able to process 336 one or more REG_REQUEST parameters in received I2 or UPDATE packets. 338 When the registrar receives a registration with a lifetime that is 339 either smaller or greater than the minimum or maximum lifetime, 340 respectively, then it SHOULD grant the registration for the minimum 341 or maximum lifetime, respectively. 343 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the I2 and UPDATE 344 packets. 346 4.4. REG_RESPONSE 348 0 1 2 3 349 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 351 | Type | Length | 352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 353 | Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 355 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 356 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 357 | | 358 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 360 Type 934 361 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 362 Lifetime Granted registration lifetime. 363 Reg Type The granted registration types in order of preference. 365 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 366 See Section 7 for more information. 368 The registrar SHOULD includes an REG_RESPONSE parameter in its R2 or 369 UPDATE packet only if a registration has successfully completed. 371 The registrar MUST NOT include more than one REG_RESPONSE parameter 372 in its R2 or UPDATE packets, while the requester MUST be able to 373 process one or more REG_RESPONSE parameters in received R2 or UPDATE 374 packets. 376 The requester MUST be prepared to receive any registration lifetime, 377 including ones beyond the minimum and maximum lifetime indicated in 378 the REG_INFO parameter. It MUST NOT expect that the returned 379 lifetime will be the requested one, even when the requested lifetime 380 falls within the announced minimum and maximum. 382 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the R2 and UPDATE 383 packets. 385 4.5. REG_FAILED 387 0 1 2 3 388 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 389 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 390 | Type | Length | 391 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 392 | Failure Type | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 393 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 394 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 395 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 396 | | 397 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 399 Type 936 400 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 401 Failure Type Reason for failure. 402 Reg Type The registration types that failed with the specified 403 reason. 405 Failure Type Reason 406 ------------ -------------------------------------------- 407 0 Registration requires additional credentials 408 1 Registration type unavailable 409 3 Insufficient resources 410 [TBD-IANA] Invalid certificate 411 3-200 Unassigned 412 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 414 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 415 See Section 7 for more information. 417 A failure type of zero means a registrar requires additional 418 credentials to authorize a requester to register with the 419 registration types listed in the parameter. A failure type of one 420 means that the requested service type is unavailable at the 421 registrar. Failure types other than zero (0) and one (1) have not 422 been defined. 424 The registrar SHOULD include the REG_FAILED parameter in its R2 or 425 UPDATE packet, if registration with the registration types listed has 426 not completed successfully and a requester is asked to try again with 427 additional credentials. 429 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the R2 and UPDATE 430 packets. 432 5. Establishing and Maintaining Registrations 434 Establishing and/or maintaining a registration may require additional 435 information not available in the transmitted REG_REQUEST or 436 REG_RESPONSE parameters. Therefore, registration type definitions 437 MAY define dependencies for HIP parameters that are not defined in 438 this document. Their semantics are subject to the specific 439 registration type specifications. 441 The minimum lifetime both registrars and requesters MUST support is 442 10 seconds, while they SHOULD support a maximum lifetime of 120 443 seconds, at least. These values define a baseline for the 444 specification of services based on the registration system. They 445 were chosen to be neither too short nor too long, and to accommodate 446 for existing timeouts of state established in middleboxes (e.g., NATs 447 and firewalls.) 449 A zero lifetime is reserved for canceling purposes. Requesting a 450 zero lifetime for a registration type is equal to canceling the 451 registration of that type. A requester MAY cancel a registration 452 before it expires by sending a REG_REQ to the registrar with a zero 453 lifetime. A registrar SHOULD respond and grant a registration with a 454 zero lifetime. A registrar (and an attached service) MAY cancel a 455 registration before it expires, at its own discretion. However, if 456 it does so, it SHOULD send a REG_RESPONSE with a zero lifetime to all 457 registered requesters. 459 6. Security Considerations 461 This section discusses the threats on the HIP registration protocol, 462 and their implications on the overall security of HIP. In 463 particular, it argues that the extensions described in this document 464 do not introduce additional threats to HIP. 466 The extensions described in this document rely on the HIP base 467 exchange and do not modify its security characteristics, e.g., 468 digital signatures or HMAC. Hence, the only threat introduced by 469 these extensions is related to the creation of soft registration 470 state at the registrar. 472 Registrars act on a voluntary basis and are willing to accept being a 473 responder and then to create HIP associations with a number of 474 previously unknown hosts. Because they have to store HIP association 475 state anyway, adding a certain amount of time-limited HIP 476 registration state should not introduce any serious additional 477 threats, especially because HIP registrars may cancel registrations 478 at any time at their own discretion, e.g., because of resource 479 constraints during an attack. 481 7. IANA Considerations 483 This section is to be interpreted according to the Guidelines for 484 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs [RFC5226]. 486 This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameter Types by 487 assigning new HIP Parameter Types values for the new HIP Parameters 488 defined in this document: 490 o REG_INFO (defined in Section 4.2) 492 o REG_REQUEST (defined in Section 4.3) 494 o REG_RESPONSE (defined in Section 4.4) 496 o REG_FAILED (defined in Section 4.5) 498 IANA has allocated the Notify Message Type code 51 for the 499 REG_REQUIRED notification error type in the Notify Message Type 500 registry. 502 IANA has opened a new registry for registration types. This document 503 does not define registration types but makes the following 504 reservations: 506 Reg Type Service 507 -------- ------- 508 0-200 Unassigned 509 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 511 Adding a new type requires new IETF specifications. 513 IANA has opened a new registry for registration failure types. This 514 document makes the following failure type definitions and 515 reservations: 517 Failure Type Reason 518 ------------ -------------------------------------------- 519 0 Registration requires additional credentials 520 1 Registration type unavailable 521 3 Insufficient resources 522 2-200 Unassigned 523 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 525 Adding a new type requires new IETF specifications. 527 8. Contributors 529 Teemu Koponen co-authored an earlier, experimental version of this 530 specification [RFC5203]. 532 9. Acknowledgments 534 The following people (in alphabetical order) have provided thoughtful 535 and helpful discussions and/or suggestions that have helped to 536 improve this document: Jeffrey Ahrenholz, Miriam Esteban, Ari 537 Keranen, Mika Kousa, Pekka Nikander, and Hannes Tschofenig. 539 Ari Keranen suggested inclusion of the text specifying requester 540 authorization based on certificates as a direct adaption of text 541 found in HIP native NAT traversal specification 542 [I-D.ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal]. 544 10. References 546 10.1. Normative References 548 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] 549 Moskowitz, R., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson, 550 "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)", draft-ietf- 551 hip-rfc5201-bis-14 (work in progress), October 2013. 553 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis] 554 Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) 555 Rendezvous Extension", draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-03 (work 556 in progress), December 2013. 558 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis] 559 Heer, T. and S. Varjonen, "Host Identity Protocol 560 Certificates", draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01 (work in 561 progress), October 2013. 563 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 564 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 566 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 567 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 568 May 2008. 570 10.2. Informative References 572 [I-D.ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal] 573 Keranen, A. and J. Melen, "Native NAT Traversal Mode for 574 the Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-native-nat- 575 traversal-06 (work in progress), December 2013. 577 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis] 578 Moskowitz, R. and M. Komu, "Host Identity Protocol 579 Architecture", draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-07 (work in 580 progress), December 2013. 582 [RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and 583 Issues", RFC 3234, February 2002. 585 [RFC5203] Laganier, J., Koponen, T., and L. Eggert, "Host Identity 586 Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension", RFC 5203, April 587 2008. 589 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5203 591 o Updated references to revised HIP specifications. 593 o Added a new registration failure type for use in case of 594 insufficient resources available at the HIP registrar. 596 o Added requester authorization based on certificates, and new 597 registration failure type for invalid certificate. 599 Authors' Addresses 601 Julien Laganier 602 Luminate Wireless, Inc. 603 Cupertino, CA 604 USA 606 EMail: julien.ietf@gmail.com 608 Lars Eggert 609 NetApp 610 Sonnenallee 1 611 Kirchheim 85551 612 Germany 614 Phone: +49 151 12055791 615 EMail: lars@netapp.com 616 URI: http://eggert.org