Re: [hiprg] comments on draft-irtf-hiprg-revocation-01.txt

[zhangdacheng 00133208 <[e-mail]>]

> > It seems to me that for revocation to work, there must be a 
> longer-lived name of some sort that persists across the key 
> change.  But in pure HIP, I am not sure what that would be.
> 
> You have a valid point here. Tobias and I recently discovered the 
> same issue in a bit different context. Motivated by the problem of 
> needing a stable identifier, I started writing a draft about a 
> certificate-based namespace for HIP that consists of a descriptive 
> host identifier, a public key and a binding certificate. Tobias 
> will hold a short presentation on the ideas during this year's 
> IETF HIPRG meeting for me. I would be glad to get early feedback 
> regarding the definition of such a namespace.
> 
> BR,
> René

Hi, This is a very interesting question. Of coure, it can be addressed by introducing longer-lived names. However, I am not very sure wheither it is desired to introduce such a namespace in HIP. I suppose there should be mechanism which is able to provide mapping service from the antique HIT to the latest HIT used by hosts. This function can be implemented in RVS for example. Hope to get more comments from the group. 

BRs

Dacheng