Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-native-api-09-pre

["Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[e-mail]>]

> So, the 128-bit reserved field cannot really be used for 
> extending the size of the HIT and we really need a completely new 
> structure for them?

OK, I overlooked the 128-bit ship_reserved field. Yes it seems like we
need a new structure; right now we're considering 256-bit HITs but what
about 512, 1024, etc.?

> Jeff, what do you think about this? Are the associate 
> problems now more 
> clear? I think it's important to get this right.

will larger HITs share the same prefix as existing 128-bit HITs? 

if we have different prefixes, API calls can use sockaddr with
sa_family=AF_HIP and we can inspect the prefix to determine the bitsize;
this is a departure from the sa_family alone determining the size of the
structure

> Should we actually have a function/macro called HIP_IS_HIT()? Or just 
> add a flag as you suggested to avoid each application to 
> hard-code their own macros for this? What do you think?

Yes I think this HIP_IS_HIT() macro would be helpful.

> > why is HIP_HIT_ANY_TMP used for anonymous identifiers? 
> maybe it should be named HIP_HIT_ANY_ANON or HIP_HIT_ANY_NOPUB?
> 
> To align it with RFC5014 constants. Do you think ANON would 
> be more clear?

The _TMP is OK, makes sense to align with RFC 5014 terminology.

 
> Yes and I was asking also what should the actual error value be (pick 
> one from /usr/include/asm-generic/errno.h)? It could be also 
> ETIMEDOUT 
> because the peer failed to respond with an R1. Or in the case of 
> hiccups, there was no response from the transport layer...
> 
> In comparison, it seems like SCTP API just typically ignores errno 
> issues with "the variable errno is then set appropriately":
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-19

I think that Tom's suggested text addresses this with the "set errno
appropriately" language.

-Jeff