idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.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 (June 30, 2015) is 3222 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 512, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'TBD-IANA-Insufficient-resources' is mentioned on line 426, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'TBD-IANA-Invalid-Certificates' is mentioned on line 431, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-02 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-33) exists of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5203 (Obsoleted by RFC 8003) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 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: January 1, 2016 June 30, 2015 8 Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension 9 draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09 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 January 1, 2016. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . 11 65 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 70 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 71 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 1. Introduction 77 This document specifies an extension to the Host Identity Protocol 78 (HIP) [RFC7401]. The extension provides a generic means for a host 79 to register with a service. The service may, for example, be a HIP 80 rendezvous server [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis] or a middlebox 81 [RFC3234]. 83 This document makes no further assumptions about the exact type of 84 service. Likewise, this document does not specify any mechanisms to 85 discover the presence of specific services or means to interact with 86 them after registration. Future documents may describe those 87 operations. 89 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 90 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 91 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 93 2. Terminology 95 In addition to the terminology defined in the HIP Architecture 96 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis], the HIP specification [RFC7401], and the 97 HIP Rendezvous Extension [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis], this document 98 defines and uses the following terms: 100 Requester: 101 a HIP node registering with a HIP registrar to request 102 registration for a service. 104 Registrar: 105 a HIP node offering registration for one or more services. 107 Service: 108 a facility that provides requesters with new capabilities or 109 functionalities operating at the HIP layer. Examples include 110 firewalls that support HIP traversal or HIP rendezvous servers. 112 Registration: 113 shared state stored by a requester and a registrar, allowing the 114 requester to benefit from one or more HIP services offered by the 115 registrar. Each registration has an associated finite lifetime. 116 Requesters can extend established registrations through re- 117 registration (i.e., perform a refresh). 119 Registration Type: 120 an identifier for a given service in the registration protocol. 121 For example, the rendezvous service is identified by a specific 122 registration type. 124 3. HIP Registration Extension Overview 126 This document does not specify the means by which a requester 127 discovers the availability of a service, or how a requester locates a 128 registrar. After a requester has discovered a registrar, it either 129 initiates HIP base exchange or uses an existing HIP association with 130 the registrar. In both cases, registrars use additional parameters, 131 which the remainder of this document defines, to announce their 132 quality and grant or refuse registration. Requesters use 133 corresponding parameters to register with the service. Both the 134 registrar and the requester MAY also include in the messages 135 exchanged additional HIP parameters specific to the registration type 136 requested. Other documents will define parameters and how they shall 137 be used. The following sections describe the differences between 138 this registration handshake and the standard HIP base exchange 139 [RFC7401]. 141 3.1. Registrar Announcing Its Ability 143 A host that is capable and willing to act as a registrar vis-a-vis a 144 specific requester SHOULD include a REG_INFO parameter in the R1 145 packets it sends during all base exchanges with that requester. If 146 it is currently unable to provide services due to transient 147 conditions, it SHOULD include an empty REG_INFO, i.e., one with no 148 services listed. If services can be provided later, it SHOULD send 149 UPDATE packets indicating the current set of services available in a 150 new REG_INFO parameter to all hosts it is associated with. 152 3.2. Requester Requesting Registration 154 To request registration with a service, a requester constructs and 155 includes a corresponding REG_REQUEST parameter in an I2 or UPDATE 156 packet it sends to the registrar. 158 If the requester has no HIP association established with the 159 registrar, it SHOULD send the REG_REQUEST at the earliest 160 possibility, i.e., in the I2 packet. This minimizes the number of 161 packets that need to be exchanged with the registrar. A registrar 162 MAY end a HIP association that does not carry a REG_REQUEST by 163 including a NOTIFY with the type REG_REQUIRED in the R2. In this 164 case, no HIP association is created between the hosts. The 165 REG_REQUIRED notification error type is 51. 167 3.3. Registrar Granting or Refusing Service(s) Registration 169 Once registration has been requested, the registrar is able to 170 authenticate the requester based on the host identity included in I2. 172 If the registrar knows the Host Identities (HIs) of all the hosts 173 that are allowed to register for service(s), it SHOULD reject 174 registrations from unknown hosts. However, since it may be 175 infeasible to pre-configure the registrar with all the HIs, the 176 registrar SHOULD also support HIP certificates 177 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis] to allow for certificate based 178 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,S3)| +-----+ 240 | RQ | | R | S2 | 241 | | I2(REG_REQ:S1) | | | 242 | |--------------------->| +-----+ 243 | |<---------------------| | S3 | 244 | | R2(REG_RESP:S1) | | | 245 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 247 A requester (RQ) registers for service (S1) with a registrar (R) of 248 services (S1), (S2), and (S3), with which it has no current HIP 249 association. 251 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 252 | | UPDATE(REG_INFO:S) | | | 253 | |<---------------------| | | 254 | RQ |--------------------->| R | S | 255 | | UPDATE(REG_REQ:S) | | | 256 | | UPDATE(REG_RESP:S) | | | 257 | |<---------------------| | | 258 +-----+ +-----+-----+ 260 A requester (RQ) registers for service (S) with a registrar (R) of 261 services (S), with which it currently has a HIP association 262 established. 264 4. Parameter Formats and Processing 266 This section describes the format and processing of the new 267 parameters introduced by the HIP registration extension. 269 4.1. Encoding Registration Lifetimes with Exponents 271 The HIP registration uses an exponential encoding of registration 272 lifetimes. This allows compact encoding of 255 different lifetime 273 values ranging from 4 ms to 178 days into an 8-bit integer field. 274 The lifetime exponent field used throughout this document MUST be 275 interpreted as representing the lifetime value 2^((lifetime - 64)/8) 276 seconds. 278 4.2. REG_INFO 279 0 1 2 3 280 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 1 281 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 282 | Type | Length | 283 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 284 | Min Lifetime | Max Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | 285 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 286 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 287 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 288 | | 289 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 291 Type 930 292 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 293 Min Lifetime Minimum registration lifetime. 294 Max Lifetime Maximum registration lifetime. 295 Reg Type The registration types offered by the registrar. 297 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 298 See Section 7 for more information. 300 Registrars include the parameter in R1 packets in order to announce 301 their registration capabilities. The registrar SHOULD include the 302 parameter in UPDATE packets when its service offering has changed. 303 HIP_SIGNATURE_2 protects the parameter within the R1 packets. 305 The registrar indicates the minimum and maximum registration lifetime 306 that it is willing to offer to a requester. A requester SHOULD NOT 307 request registration with lifetime greater than the maximum 308 registration lifetime or smaller than the minimum registration 309 lifetime. 311 4.3. REG_REQUEST 312 0 1 2 3 313 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 1 314 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 315 | Type | Length | 316 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 317 | Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 318 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 319 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 320 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 321 | | 322 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 324 Type 932 325 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 326 Lifetime Requested registration lifetime. 327 Reg Type The preferred registration types in order of preference. 329 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 330 See Section 7 for more information. 332 A requester includes the REG_REQUEST parameter in I2 or UPDATE 333 packets to register with a registrar's service(s). If the 334 REG_REQUEST parameter is in an UPDATE packet, the registrar MUST NOT 335 modify the registrations of registration types that are not listed in 336 the parameter. Moreover, the requester MUST NOT include the 337 parameter unless the registrar's R1 packet or latest received UPDATE 338 packet has contained a REG_INFO parameter with the requested 339 registration types. 341 The requester MUST NOT include more than one REG_REQUEST parameter in 342 its I2 or UPDATE packets, while the registrar MUST be able to process 343 one or more REG_REQUEST parameters in received I2 or UPDATE packets. 345 When the registrar receives a registration with a lifetime that is 346 either smaller or greater than the minimum or maximum lifetime, 347 respectively, then it SHOULD grant the registration for the minimum 348 or maximum lifetime, respectively. 350 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the I2 and UPDATE 351 packets. 353 4.4. REG_RESPONSE 354 0 1 2 3 355 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 1 356 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 357 | Type | Length | 358 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 359 | Lifetime | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 360 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 361 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 362 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 363 | | 364 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 366 Type 934 367 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 368 Lifetime Granted registration lifetime. 369 Reg Type The granted registration types in order of preference. 371 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 372 See Section 7 for more information. 374 The registrar SHOULD includes an REG_RESPONSE parameter in its R2 or 375 UPDATE packet only if a registration has successfully completed. 377 The registrar MUST NOT include more than one REG_RESPONSE parameter 378 in its R2 or UPDATE packets, while the requester MUST be able to 379 process one or more REG_RESPONSE parameters in received R2 or UPDATE 380 packets. 382 The requester MUST be prepared to receive any registration lifetime, 383 including ones beyond the minimum and maximum lifetime indicated in 384 the REG_INFO parameter. It MUST NOT expect that the returned 385 lifetime will be the requested one, even when the requested lifetime 386 falls within the announced minimum and maximum. 388 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the R2 and UPDATE 389 packets. 391 4.5. REG_FAILED 392 0 1 2 3 393 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 1 394 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 395 | Type | Length | 396 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 397 | Failure Type | Reg Type #1 | Reg Type #2 | Reg Type #3 | 398 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 399 | ... | ... | Reg Type #n | | 400 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Padding + 401 | | 402 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 404 Type 936 405 Length Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding. 406 Failure Type Reason for failure. 407 Reg Type The registration types that failed with the specified 408 reason. 410 Failure Type Reason 411 ------------ -------------------------------------------- 412 0 Registration requires additional credentials 413 1 Registration type unavailable 414 [TBD-IANA] Insufficient resources 415 [TBD-IANA] Invalid certificate 416 [TBD-IANA]-200 Unassigned 417 201-255 Reserved by IANA for private use 419 Other documents will define specific values for registration types. 420 See Section 7 for more information. 422 Failure type zero (0) indicates that the registrar requires 423 additional credentials to authorize a requester to register with the 424 registration types listed in the parameter. Failure type one (1) 425 indicates that the requested service type is unavailable at the 426 registrar. Failure type ([TBD-IANA-Insufficient-resources]) 427 indicates that the registrar does not currently have enough resources 428 to register the requester for the service(s); when that is the case 429 the requester MUST NOT reattempt immediately to register for the same 430 service(s), and MAY attempt to contact another registrar to register 431 for these service(s). Failure type ([TBD-IANA-Invalid-Certificates]) 432 indicates that the registrar could not validate the certificate 433 provided by the requester to register for the service(s); when that 434 is the case the requester MUST NOT reattempt to register for the same 435 set of services while providing the same certificate, and MAY attempt 436 to register for the same set of service(s) with a different 437 certificate, or with a different set of service(s) with the same 438 certificate. 440 The registrar SHOULD include a REG_FAILED parameter in its R2 or 441 UPDATE packet, if registration with the registration types listed has 442 not completed successfully and a requester is asked to try again with 443 additional credentials. 445 HIP_SIGNATURE protects the parameter within the R2 and UPDATE 446 packets. 448 5. Establishing and Maintaining Registrations 450 Establishing and/or maintaining a registration may require additional 451 information not available in the transmitted REG_REQUEST or 452 REG_RESPONSE parameters. Therefore, registration type definitions 453 MAY define dependencies for HIP parameters that are not defined in 454 this document. Their semantics are subject to the specific 455 registration type specifications. 457 The minimum lifetime both registrars and requesters MUST support is 458 10 seconds, while they SHOULD support a maximum lifetime of 120 459 seconds, at least. These values define a baseline for the 460 specification of services based on the registration system. They 461 were chosen to be neither too short nor too long, and to accommodate 462 for existing timeouts of state established in middleboxes (e.g., NATs 463 and firewalls.) 465 A zero lifetime is reserved for canceling purposes. Requesting a 466 zero lifetime for a registration type is equal to canceling the 467 registration of that type. A requester MAY cancel a registration 468 before it expires by sending a REG_REQ to the registrar with a zero 469 lifetime. A registrar SHOULD respond and grant a registration with a 470 zero lifetime. A registrar (and an attached service) MAY cancel a 471 registration before it expires, at its own discretion. However, if 472 it does so, it SHOULD send a REG_RESPONSE with a zero lifetime to all 473 registered requesters. 475 6. Security Considerations 477 This section discusses the threats on the HIP registration protocol, 478 and their implications on the overall security of HIP. In 479 particular, it argues that the extensions described in this document 480 do not introduce additional threats to HIP. 482 The extensions described in this document rely on the HIP base 483 exchange and do not modify its security characteristics, e.g., 484 digital signatures or HMAC. Hence, the only threat introduced by 485 these extensions is related to the creation of soft registration 486 state at the registrar. 488 Registrars act on a voluntary basis and are willing to accept being a 489 responder and then to create HIP associations with a number of 490 potentially unknown hosts. Because they have to store HIP 491 association state anyway, adding a certain amount of time-limited HIP 492 registration state should not introduce any serious additional 493 threats, especially because HIP registrars may cancel registrations 494 at any time at their own discretion, e.g., because of resource 495 constraints during an attack. 497 7. IANA Considerations 499 This section is to be interpreted according to the Guidelines for 500 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs [RFC5226]. 502 This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameters Types by 503 replacing references to [RFC5203] by references to this document. 505 This document also updates the registry for registration failure 506 types by making the following failure type definitions and 507 reservations: 509 Failure Type Reason 510 ------------ -------------------------------------------- 511 [TBD-IANA] Insufficient resources 512 [TBD-IANA] Invalid certificate 514 8. Contributors 516 Teemu Koponen co-authored an earlier, experimental version of this 517 specification [RFC5203]. 519 9. Acknowledgments 521 The following people (in alphabetical order) have provided thoughtful 522 and helpful discussions and/or suggestions that have helped to 523 improve this document: Jeffrey Ahrenholz, Miriam Esteban, Ari 524 Keranen, Mika Kousa, Pekka Nikander, and Hannes Tschofenig. 526 Lars Eggert has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 527 2020 research and innovation program 2014-2018 under grant agreement 528 No. 644866 ("SSICLOPS"). This document reflects only the authors' 529 views and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that 530 may be made of the information it contains. 532 Ari Keranen suggested inclusion of the text specifying requester 533 authorization based on certificates as a direct adaption of text 534 found in HIP native NAT traversal specification 535 [I-D.ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal]. 537 10. References 539 10.1. Normative References 541 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis] 542 Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) 543 Rendezvous Extension", draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 (work 544 in progress), June 2015. 546 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis] 547 Heer, T. and S. Varjonen, "Host Identity Protocol 548 Certificates", draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-02 (work in 549 progress), June 2015. 551 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 552 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 554 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 555 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 556 May 2008. 558 [RFC7401] Moskowitz, R., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson, 559 "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)", RFC 7401, 560 April 2015. 562 10.2. Informative References 564 [I-D.ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal] 565 Keranen, A. and J. Melen, "Native NAT Traversal Mode for 566 the Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-native-nat- 567 traversal-08 (work in progress), January 2015. 569 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis] 570 Moskowitz, R. and M. Komu, "Host Identity Protocol 571 Architecture", draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-12 (work in 572 progress), June 2015. 574 [RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and 575 Issues", RFC 3234, February 2002. 577 [RFC5203] Laganier, J., Koponen, T., and L. Eggert, "Host Identity 578 Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension", RFC 5203, April 579 2008. 581 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5203 583 o Updated references to revised HIP specifications. 585 o Added a new registration failure type for use in case of 586 insufficient resources available at the HIP registrar. 588 o Added requester authorization based on certificates, and new 589 registration failure type for invalid certificate. 591 Authors' Addresses 593 Julien Laganier 594 Luminate Wireless, Inc. 595 Cupertino, CA 596 USA 598 EMail: julien.ietf@gmail.com 600 Lars Eggert 601 NetApp 602 Sonnenallee 1 603 Kirchheim 85551 604 Germany 606 Phone: +49 151 12055791 607 EMail: lars@netapp.com 608 URI: http://eggert.org