Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Ari Keranen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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?
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal

I was going to shamelessly copy/paste section 3.2 of [1] in the
registration draft but I noticed that [1] actually has a normative
dependency on RFC 6253 "Host Identity Protocol Certificates" which is
Experimental. Thus adding the support for certificates to a standard
track HIP registration would cause a so-called downref which could be
problematic...

Gonzalo - what is your take on this?

--julien