[Hipsec-rg] comments on draft-heer-hip-middle-auth-01

Hello Thomas,

Thanks for raising the discussion again. I am of course willing to  
continue to work on the draft in any way. However, I would prefer to  
continue in close collaboration with the RG or the WG as their input  
means a lot to me.

I guess the question whether to pursue the draft is essentially the  
question if HIP should be used for path-coupled signaling to  
middleboxes (i.e., expect that at some point in time there will be  
middleboxes that inspect HIP payload and use the HI namespace).  
Therefore, I would be interested if the RG thinks that using the HI  
namespace by on-path HIP-aware nodes is useful/desired/necessary or  
not. If so, is the approach that the draft takes a good one or should  
we reconsider?

Input from the list is very appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Tobias

Am 03.09.2008 um 17:56 schrieb Henderson, Thomas R:

> I'd like to solicit some comments on
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-heer-hip-middle-auth-01.txt
>
> Tobias has presented this draft a couple of times now, and at the  
> end of
> the last RG meeting was asking whether the HIPRG wanted to continue to
> work on this topic.
>
> There was some discussion of this draft in January in which Julien  
> asked
> for clarification of what security service we want to provide, and  
> what
> are the requirements being addressed, since it was pointed out that
> authentication of the base exchange was not carrying over to the ESP
> data flows.  Section 4 of the updated draft responds to this request.
>
> As a matter of procedure, there are a few directions the RG can take
> with respect to this or any draft within scope of our charter:
> 1) agree to take on the draft as a RG item and try to publish it as  
> a RG
> draft, according to the process being defined in
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rfcs-01.txt
> 2) recommend to the HIP WG that they take the draft
> 3) decline to take the draft and recommend to the authors to publish  
> it
> as an independent submission
>
> If we agree to 1), we will need to come to some RG consensus on the
> draft and willingness to work on it through the publication process.
>
> Comments?
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg

--  
Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student
Distributed Systems Group
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer