Re: [Hipsec] feedback of hiccups-01 draft
"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Fri, 30 January 2009 18:25 UTC
Return-Path: <hipsec-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: hip-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-hip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336DA3A6AC8; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:25:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACE128C19D for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:25:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.819
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.780, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qi+wRRR1Z8Bm for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432673A6AEE for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:25:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id n0UIOhQw027256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:24:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n0UIOgxe027328; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:24:42 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n0UIObHx027132; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:24:42 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.55.44]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:24:42 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:24:42 -0800
Message-ID: <77F357662F8BFA4CA7074B0410171B6D07B0BD3A@XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <49815F7E.5080604@hiit.fi>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] feedback of hiccups-01 draft
Thread-Index: AcmB5h1BR0ZI/UoSTRai7zTd7vu/jwBIKCgw
References: <49815F7E.5080604@hiit.fi>
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: miika.komu@hiit.fi, hipsec@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2009 18:24:42.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[05012D30:01C98308]
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] feedback of hiccups-01 draft
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/hipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org
> > * The justification for the seq/ack mechanism is a bit unclear. Is it > only about replay protection? I have a similar question-- why not just make this an unreliable data service and delegate reliability to the application? > > * I just implemented minimal support for HIP_DATA in HIPL. Now the > implementation should be able to respond with an R1 to a HIPL_DATA > packet. Now we need to test it for interoperability :) I > would suggest > that OpenHIP folks also implemented this feature because it should be > only few lines of code. > what is your user-space API for this service? It is some kind of SEQPACKET socket? > * Second paragraph in section 5 explain about the issues with > fragmentation. Implementation wise, shouldn't this problem be just > solved by lowering the MTU of the tunnel device by the size of HIP > header, [HOST_ID], payload HMAC and HIP_SIGNATURE? I think this is a complicated issue and agree that it would be helpful to give more guidance on how to handle it, beyond "should not generate too large datagrams". Again, there may be API issues to discuss with respect to this. - Tom _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
- [Hipsec] feedback of hiccups-01 draft Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] feedback of hiccups-01 draft Henderson, Thomas R