IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Suite IDs

Rene Hummen <Rene.Hummen@comsys.rwth-aachen.de> Fri, 10 October 2014 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Rene.Hummen@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19EC91A1BB7 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JzlXXPA3qJa3 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-out-2.rwth-aachen.de (mx-out-2.rwth-aachen.de [134.130.5.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932CF1A6F7D for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,690,1406584800"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="264690392"
Received: from mail-i4.nets.rwth-aachen.de ([137.226.12.21]) by mx-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2014 10:52:05 +0200
Received: from messenger.nets.rwth-aachen.de (messenger.nets.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.13.40]) by mail-i4.nets.rwth-aachen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD5613DAC2; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:52:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MESSENGER.nets.rwth-aachen.de ([fe80::d4e:bb9d:9e0:bfee]) by MESSENGER.nets.rwth-aachen.de ([fe80::d4e:bb9d:9e0:bfee%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:52:05 +0200
From: Rene Hummen <Rene.Hummen@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
To: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Suite IDs
Thread-Index: AQHP3AFN97ZF10cpAkSCBzb5VduNeZwYNfgAgAANKQCADvZwAIAAsH2AgADOVQCAAD0AAA==
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:52:04 +0000
Message-ID: <33DC1FB2-5568-4192-B7A7-B9A3CE91A8B4@comsys.rwth-aachen.de>
References: <5420863E.1060608@tomh.org> <20140922212826.5048E216C3B@bikeshed.isc.org> <54210668.4050605@tomh.org> <20140923112746.EA16C216C3B@bikeshed.isc.org> <OFD6408C65.060C7582-ONC1257D62.005816DE-C1257D62.0059BBB9@belden.com> <542991A8.4020908@tomh.org> <CAE_dhjtRkfx+hZ512d1+CMCdpJJx8-ja4nwT=XAi_YC68L4LcA@mail.gmail.com> <543629E6.8030802@tomh.org> <3E6747D3-A24D-42DF-A7DA-3613B7DE90E4@comsys.rwth-aachen.de> <54376B08.90906@tomh.org>
In-Reply-To: <54376B08.90906@tomh.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.226.12.29]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B6CFA52-2821-4A88-BDD1-87362082B7E8"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/5eGJZlgLFWkTDbxgk336MKR5uro
Cc: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, Francis Dupont <fdupont@isc.org>, HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Antwort: Re: clarification on HIT Suite IDs
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:52:09 -0000

On 10 Oct 2014, at 07:13, Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> wrote:
> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Rene Hummen wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> 
>> I am not sure if we there was an answer to this question before. Why
>> don’t we simply use the four lower-order bits in the HIT_SUITE_LIST
>> ID field to convey the HIT Suites ID? That would definitely make the
>> mapping between HIT Suites IDs and OGA IDs much clearer as the 4-bit
>> and the 8-bit values would be the same. Moreover, I thought we would
>> skip the part about using larger HIT suite IDs _in the main protocol
>> specification_. I like your added text in the IANA consideration
>> though.
> 
> I agree with your comment that alignment with lower-order bits in the 
> 8-bit fields would be clearer.  However, I suppose it was done the way 
> it currently reads to facilitate the expansion; I don't remember the 
> history of that particular design choice.

When using the four lower-order bits instead of the higher-order bits, we could simply define HIP Suite IDs > 16 to be reserved for future use. This would similarly facilitate the desired expansion, doesn’t it?

René


--
Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student
Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
tel: +49 241 80 21426
web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email