Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01
"Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com> Mon, 21 February 2011 15:48 UTC
Return-Path: <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058D03A711F for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:48:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kePAEMdafgwX for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2485D3A7108 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p1LFnTRt025617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p1LFnTop019804; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:49:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.113]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p1LFmTKL018151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:49:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.246]) by XCH-NWHT-10.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.113]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:49:11 -0800
From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com>
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:49:15 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01
Thread-Index: AcvRzIEPzDYluTuPRe++eHLyQjIHeAADqMzA
Message-ID: <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B9379AA07740@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B9379A8486D1@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D626A88.6060806@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D626A88.6060806@htt-consult.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
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] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:48:59 -0000
> > - the table of terms in Section 2.2 could refer to > > RFC 5201 under definition of base exchange > > Not sure what you would want here. Can you offer up some text? The first occurrence of "HIP base exchange" and the table refer to Section 7. If Section 7 refers to RFC 5201 that is probably enough, and/or in the table in 2.2 you could have a "see [RFC5201]". As long as 5201 is referenced somewhere that seems fine. > > Section 6.2 last paragraph discusses skipping the address check; > > CBA can also be used to reduce handover latency here? > > CBA? credit-based authentication Maybe this lost its steam? Was it ever implemented? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vogt-hip-credit-based-authorization-00 I wouldn't reference CBA if there is no WG interest... > > "There was little if any concrete thoughts about how HIP might affect > > IP-layer or application-layer multicast." > > This sentence made sense in conjunction with the RFC 4423 abstract: > > "The memo describes the thinking of the authors as of Fall 2003." > > ...but without such text that sentence on multicast doesn't really > > stand on its own. > > What would you suggest? maybe: "There has not been much work in describing how HIP might affect IP-layer or application-layer multicast." or: "Few concrete thoughts exist about how HIP might affect IP-layer or application-layer multicast." ? Just trying to reduce the dependency on: "[As of Fall 2003] there was little if any..." -Jeff
- [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01 Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz