Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Tue, 18 May 2010 19:25 UTC

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: 'Robert Moskowitz' <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:23:10 -0700
Thread-Topic: [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet
Thread-Index: Acr2s2LK5kRS3jacQaGQNlfIovw93wACt3zw
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE9716197@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20100517173256.798446BE575@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE9716194@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4BF2D498.9050907@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BF2D498.9050907@htt-consult.com>
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: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet
Precedence: list

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:rgm@htt-consult.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:56 AM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: 'Noel Chiappa'; hipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet
>
> On 05/18/2010 01:31 PM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >>      >  From: Robert Moskowitz<rgm@htt-consult.com>
> >>
> >>      >  What is HIP? Is HIP the exchange we have now have and
> >> only that? Or is
> >>      >  HIP a class of protocols built on a Host Identity,
> each bring a
> >>      >  slightly different set of security claims and risks and
> >> a slightly
> >>      >  different domain of use?
> >>
> >> Well, those are some key (and excellent) questions - and I
> >> would think you
> >> need to answer them all fairly fully, and fairly early in the
> >> design process.
> >>
> >>
> > I agree, and while it would be fine to work the protocol
> specifics in the research group (since the proposed WG
> charter doesn't include this for now), I think that the basic
> question above should be covered in RFC4423bis.  I would
> support the latter interpretation (that HIP is (potentially)
> a protocol family built around the concept of a namespace for
> IP stacks).
>
> I am working on this wording being added to 4423-bis. I
> really think it
> captures my thoughts over the past 2 years on work being done
> with HIP
> RFID and HIP IOT. And now HIP DEX.
>

I reread the intro to 4423(bis) just now and found myself thinking that it is really the discussion about the independent namespace for IP stacks, rather than the protocol exchange itself, that captures the essence of HIP.  For instance, section 4.1 of 4423 (now 3.1 of 4423-bis).  What aspects, if any, of this description of the namespace do not generally hold?  I might relax some text in the very last paragraph such as "Using Host Identities requires its own protocol layer, the Host Identity Protocol..." and "The names are based on public-key cryptography.." to instead read something like "One implementation of these ideas is based on the use of public/private key pairs as names and on a key management protocol called the Host Identity Protocol, but other implementations with the above properties may be possible..."

- Tom

[Hipsec] Putting HIP on a Diet Robert Moskowitz
Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet gao.yang2
Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet Henderson, Thomas R
Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet Robert Moskowitz
Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet Robert Moskowitz
Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet Henderson, Thomas R
Re: [Hipsec] [hiprg] Putting HIP on a Diet Noel Chiappa