IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items

Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> Mon, 24 September 2012 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615B721F8501 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nm-KfabCBTt2 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44A821F84F5 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.10]) by mail.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34B1304E59 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:32:04 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <505FAA04.90304@cs.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:32:04 +0800
From: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hipsec@ietf.org
References: <4FE96F9F.3090800@ericsson.com> <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BD324E110@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FEA1876.900@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <CAE_dhjveQ6WVVE3BVKk2txfBxNhfWvjbz+QVU2P919dNZ1WO4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAE_dhjtJ_c6OWA9iFXOkpqej2BPuURUumroCTh5xgb3=8+UFQQ@mail.gmail.com> <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA2E4C38C032@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA2E4C38C032@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:32:07 -0000

Hi,

On 09/24/2012 07:25 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Julien Laganier [mailto:julien.ietf@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:35 PM
>> To: hipsec@ietf.org
>> Cc: Henderson, Thomas R
>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I've been thinking a bit more about the update of RFC5204 / Rendezvous
>> Server support. See below:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> - 5204bis (rendezvous) needs one more subsection regarding relaying
>> of
>>> the UPDATE packet to support double jump of mobile nodes. As this
>>> isn't really useful without the mobility support my proposal is to
>>> tackle this one together with the 5206bis.
>>
>> I figured two things:
>>
>> 1- relaying an UPDATE packet is pointless in the absence of HIP
>> mobility support on both endpoints.
>>
>> 2- support for rendezvous server is useful independently of support for
>> HIP mobility.
>>
>> Taking both 1. and 2. into account, my conclusion is that it makes
>> sense to keep the rendezvous server support self-contained in 5203bis,
>> i.e., without a normative dependency to the mobility support in
>> 5206bis, while 5206 would specify an extension to rendezvous mechanism
>> for support of relaying UPDATE packets.
>>
>> Makes sense?
>>
>
> Julien, I would be fine with your proposal.

seems fine to me as well.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email