Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-00

["Henderson, Thomas R" <[e-mail]>]

> >
> > When you say "In the other Peer ID mode, namely "RELOAD",..." which
> > case do you mean?  Just the self-generated case?  If it is the
> > centralized case, the Node IDs can't be used as HITs, and then the
> > Node IDs and the HITs are not related to one another and need to be
> > bound by some kind of certificate framework.  This is what I think
> > section 5.6.1.1 of the base draft refers to.  Or am I
> > misunderstanding something?
>
> We mean both cases.  I'm sorry but I don't follow why couldn't the
> non-ORCHID Node IDs be used as "HITs" (i.e., in the HIP header, VIA
> lists and certificates) in the centralized case?
>

Let's say that the enrollment server allocates the first node the Node ID of "0", the second node a Node ID of "1" etc.  Are you suggesting that these values are used as HITs?

I raised this issue in another thread yesterday, but it seems to me that a central idea in the HIP architecture is that the HIT is the hash of the public key of a public/private key pair and that the host holds the private key.  I don't believe we've talked before about the possibility that the HI and HIT are not related cryptographically.

- Tom