Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items

[Ari Keranen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julien,

On 7/6/12 3:37 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> - 5203bis (registration) can IMHO be republished as is as I haven't
> seen any issue with the original version. If people agree I could
> republish it and we could WGLC it...

I posted some comments about 5203bis earlier this year but back then 
there was no discussion regarding them. So, here goes again.

Some of these have been discussed also earlier on this list (these 
relate to requirements discovered with the native NAT traversal draft 
[1]), but I'll have them all here for easier reference.

Currently, the registrar has no way of indicating that it would 
otherwise accept the registration, but it's currently running low on 
resources. For this purpose, a failure type "Insufficient resources" 
could be added to the "registration failure types".

Registration using authentication with certificates could be part of the 
registration RFC. Currently, only authentication with HI is defined, but 
knowing all HIs beforehand is not practical in many cases.

Text in section 3.2. of [1] could be used as a basis for this (just 
replace "HIP' data relay" with "registrar"). Also, if this 
authentication mode is added to the draft, failure type "Invalid 
certificate" should be added for the failure case.

Should we have these in the registration draft?


Cheers,
Ari

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal