IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis: Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS questions

Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Thu, 04 September 2014 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <tomh@tomh.org>
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 88A311A02FC for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 06:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 DP1PT1oKmPV9 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 06:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BC2FC1A88AD for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4329 invoked by uid 0); 4 Sep 2014 13:56:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 4 Sep 2014 13:56:23 -0000
Received: from box528.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.128]) by cmgw4 with id n7w61o00K2molgS017w9q0; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:56:21 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=KvHehwmN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=K/474su/0lCI2gKrDs9DLw==:117 a=K/474su/0lCI2gKrDs9DLw==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=ZSdzdHkL1-cA:10 a=53-2lCgHTR4A:10 a=dE5a-coJAxUA:10 a=q7J0aIbBmN8A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=HYWc1YUsAAAA:8 a=IA_2sfgTpx8A:10 a=rREcAdlOb-AA:10 a=43fVnSn2dgVZ1oMuhYgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tomh.org; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=RU15I7MUrt2t5+9ECvkoeoWs7D+C0WmMWT2+2HgS8n4=; b=imAarTMzRyakzCfvvRJfmzPYOXNwTk7bZhWG5oQadQ4dSagbcQRqCLfSHFckMvF5M6fbIh7uBuIsrnUqCqeYD/la5TPpuh6qUbDkCoZ5/JgJ3MrlCMHRcSt2RwdM7YDr;
Received: from [71.231.123.189] (port=37722 helo=[192.168.168.42]) by box528.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <tomh@tomh.org>) id 1XPXWB-0005qT-E8; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:56:07 -0600
Message-ID: <54086F74.7040906@tomh.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 06:56:04 -0700
From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Tobias.Heer@Belden.com
References: <OFE663CEC5.35AA808D-ONC1257D47.005B2906-C1257D47.005F754B@belden.com> <5407F111.3050802@tomh.org> <54081943.3040107@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <54081943.3040107@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {3122:box528.bluehost.com:tomhorg:tomh.org} {sentby:smtp auth 71.231.123.189 authed with tomh@tomh.org}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/MGlJjTvuSGCU_s-zXzf-zwwXi88
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis: Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS questions
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: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:56:30 -0000

On 09/04/2014 12:48 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 04/09/14 05:56, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>
>> How could we move this issue forward?  Stephen, would you advocate
>> putting in 2048-bit and 4096-bit groups (perhaps with values 11 and 12
>> respectively)?
>
> I would advocate putting in the 2048 bit group yes. I figure
> you probably don't need the 4096 one on the basis that before
> one would go there you'd want to switch to some form of ECC.
> So I'd not argue to define a codepoint for the 4096 bit group
> for now myself, but equally, I'd not argue against doing so.

I'm fine with that (adding the 2048 bit group).  I propose to add it as 
"value 11" in the list.  I'll wait a few days for concurrence or lazy 
consensus before making the change, however.

- Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email