Re: [Hipsec] Orchid generation algorithm - where should it be specified?

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Tue, 02 March 2010 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5723928C14E for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:44:36 -0800 (PST)
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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jqQzPbVTczV9 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3D93A8B99 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id o22GiRbp006685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o22GiRXo011924; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:44:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.112]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o22GiAnm011252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:44:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.83]) by XCH-NWHT-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.112]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:44:14 -0800
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: "'Laganier, Julien'" <julienl@qualcomm.com>, Tobias Heer <heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:44:13 -0800
Thread-Topic: Orchid generation algorithm - where should it be specified?
Thread-Index: Acq6HQFRfWovKopxThqPJUotU+OLVQABvcMQAADlmBA=
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4C1F48A839@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <A06A3401-7765-45C4-A53B-208993B7071C@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C6A8C3F1E@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C6A8C3F1E@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "hipsec@ietf.org WG" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Orchid generation algorithm - where should it be specified?
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:44:36 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laganier, Julien [mailto:julienl@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:20 AM
> To: Tobias Heer; Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: hipsec@ietf.org WG
> Subject: RE: Orchid generation algorithm - where should it be
> specified?
>
> Hello Tobias,
>
> Tobias Heer wrote:
> >
> > Hello Julien and Tom,
> >
> > the algorithm for generating the hash part of the HITs in the new
> > ORCHID format and its index should be specified somewhere.
> The question
> > is where.
> >
> > Since not all protocols that use ORCHIDS are required to
> use the same
> > bits/algorithms, it might make sense to specify the actual ID and
> > algorithm in the context of the protocol that uses the ORCHID.
>
> I agree.
>
> > In our case, we could start with a simple allocation for:
> >
> > ID 0 - SHA2-256 truncated to 96 bits
> >
> > This could be defined in any HIP document. I think RFC5201-bis would
> > make sense, wouldn't it?
> > We can later extend it to use some hash chain extension
> mechanism (e.g.,
> > as ID 1) but I think a simple mechanism is a good start.
> >
> > Any opinions on this?
>
> I agree that 5201bis is the logical place to do that.
>

+1

Tom