Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt

[Miika Komu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I don't have a strong opinion, but I guess SPKI should be dropped since 
the HIP CERT work is going proceed to the standards track.

On 10/12/2015 11:59 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo & all,
>
> all but one of the nits are easily fixed. The one downref to RFC2693 is
> the only harder one as I do not think it will ever proceed to anything
> more than experimental. The work on RFC 2693 stopped in 1999. Over 114
> papers have been written about it since. Even few this year but all
> point to that experimental RFC. Moreover, it seems (in my opinion) that
> currently there is little or no interest in continuing SPKI work nor
> there is any interest in the industry to implement SPKI as it basically
> provides the functionality of X509v3 with different syntax. One option
> would be to remove the examples and mentions about SPKI in the
> RFC6253bis. What do you guys think?
>
> BR,
> Samu Varjonen
>
> On 02/10/15 13:15, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi Samu,
>>
>> thanks for revising the draft. There are still a few things that need to
>> be fixed before I can request its publication. From the output of the
>> nits tool:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt
>>
>>
>>>    -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes
>>> RFC6253, but
>>>       the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.
>> You need to add an Obsoletes: header to the header part at the beginning
>> of the draft. Additionally, you also need to add an Updates header as
>> follows:
>>
>>    Obsoletes: 6253
>>    Updates: 7401
>>
>> Note that the original RFC updated RFC 5201 and, thus, had an Updates
>> header:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6253
>>
>>>    == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378
>>> work, but was
>>>       first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer
>>> is usually
>>>       necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older
>>> RFCs, and that
>>>       take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can
>>> contact all
>>>       authors of the source material and they are willing to grant
>>> the BCP78
>>>       rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the
>>> disclaimer.
>>>       Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this
>>> comment.
>>>       (See the Legal Provisions document at
>>>       http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
>> You are the same authors as in the original RFC. Do you both agree to
>> remove the disclaimer?
>>
>>>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC4843' is defined on line 349, but no explicit
>>>       reference was found in the text
>> Does this reference need to be removed or used somewhere in the text?
>>
>>>    ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 2693
>> RFC 6232bis is intended to be a Proposed Standard. Can we reference a
>> Standards Track RFC instead of this one? Otherwise, we will need to talk
>> with our AD so make sure it is OK to normatively reference an
>> Experimental RFC.
>>
>>>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4843 (Obsoleted by RFC 7343)
>>>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5996 (Obsoleted by RFC 7296)
>> Could you please update the two references above?
>>
>>>    ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 6253
>> This downref is obviously OK... but what about making it an
>> Informational reference instead?
>>
>> Could you please revise the draft addressing all the comments above?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> On 22/09/2015 1:58 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>>   This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working
>>> Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>>          Title           : Host Identity Protocol Certificates
>>>          Authors         : Tobias Heer
>>>                            Samu Varjonen
>>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt
>>>     Pages           : 11
>>>     Date            : 2015-09-22
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>     The Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital
>>>     certificates.  It is used for carrying these certificates in Host
>>>     Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets.  This document specifies
>>> the
>>>     certificate parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed
>>>     verification.  Additionally, this document specifies the
>>>     representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and
>>>     Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates.
>>>
>>>     The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates
>>>     are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful
>>>     or failed verification, are specific to the scenario in which the
>>>     certificates are used.  Hence, the definition of these scenario-
>>>     specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT
>>>     parameter.
>>>
>>>     This document extends RFC7401 and obsoletes RFC6253.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec