Re: [hiprg] comments on draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-02.txt

"Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <> Wed, 17 November 2010 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD2D28C0D0 for <>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:35:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F6xUG6GaVMVe for <>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF0128C0CE for <>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id oAHFa98l002467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oAHFa9VP020615 for <>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oAHFa8Ep020571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:36:08 -0800
From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <>
To: "Henderson, Thomas R" <>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:36:07 -0800
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-02.txt
Thread-Index: Actli5TrJN4bW56URdGgMRn2lZ/0ZgYjOzBQAhR6vCA=
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [hiprg] comments on draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:35:34 -0000

> 1) it is stated that secret_hash is an optional SHA-1 hash of 
> secret value.  Does it have to be specified that this is 
> SHA-1; couldn't it be any other hash function?  It seems to 
> me that this value is just opaque to the server so maybe the 
> draft should just state that the secret_hash is recommended 
> to be a pseudo-random value (such as generated by a hash function)

The SHA-1 secret hash is prescribed by OpenDHT; the server does not treat this as opaque; the put operation includes the secret hash and the rm (remove) has the secret value, which must match when hashed.

This page mentions SHA-1 vulnerabilities and alternate hash functions (but OpenDHT is no longer under active development):

> 2) should it be possible (or is it desirable or not) to 
> return error code 3 for the rm operation?  I'm guessing that 
> OpenDHT may not return this and hence you do not include this 
> case, but you talk about modifying DHT servers and it may be 
> advantageous to allow a server to optionally return an error 
> code 3 on a rm operation in case something went wrong (such 
> as nonexistent record or bad secret_hash).

Seems like a good idea, but apparently nonexistent records and bad secrets are OK due to replication inconsistencies, according to the last answer on this page:

> 3) I would recommend to classify the references as Normative 
> vs Informative.  It seems that RFCs 2045, 4843, 5201, 5205, 
> and I-D.cert are normative.  Is there a normative reference 
> for OpenDHT interface (rather than listing the website url in 
> the body of the draft)?

OK, this is probably a good normative reference for OpenDHT:
OpenDHT: A Public DHT Service and Its Uses. Sean Rhea, Brighten Godfrey, Brad Karp, John Kubiatowicz, Sylvia Ratnasamy, Scott Shenker, Ion Stoica, and Harlan Yu. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2005, August 2005. 

thanks for the comments!