[Hipsec] your DISCUSS comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis

Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Tue, 22 July 2014 18:51 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EB11B2BC5 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NenHrYbIbcGe for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 554AE1B2BC0 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21196 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jul 2014 18:51:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) ( by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 18:51:15 -0000
Received: from box528.bluehost.com ([]) by cmgw2 with id VWr41o01J2molgS01Wr7Tb; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:51:14 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=EJKVjTpC 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=ukapeFeQaPAA:10 a=q7J0aIbBmN8A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=HYWc1YUsAAAA:8 a=IA_2sfgTpx8A:10 a=rREcAdlOb-AA:10 a=JePZqkDgZHDLM-wJ_8UA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA: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:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=LyX5C9ybu13/l2A41r/2zAsWOn5uANfI+xO5UFp5ZII=; b=NxKPglTLkrfgZDAW2GSkaFkLs3ABZgK7W+mL1FRy/34rV0nnpUEJi1kwauHwz6QBDTCPr5Lt23CErvJ3LDEFNABBIMTjZYco6ERyzL0/vFALEvoPrmNVpl79Tb4hodcv;
Received: from [] (port=41366 helo=[]) by box528.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <tomh@tomh.org>) id 1X9f9V-0002wk-Ni; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:51:05 -0600
Message-ID: <53CEB296.9050202@tomh.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:51:02 -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: bkhabs@cs.jhu.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {3122:box528.bluehost.com:tomhorg:tomh.org} {sentby:smtp auth authed with tomh@tomh.org}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/_QVl_OlP4qSE0GYGm3l1elu1s6M
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: [Hipsec] your DISCUSS comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis
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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:51:21 -0000


You left the following DISCUSS comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis 
which I would like to address below:

 > I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I do
 > have two small points to discuss in section 5.2.3.
 > 1. The R1_COUNTER parameter was labeled as optional in RFC 5201, but
 > made mandatory in this revision.  However, the text says it SHOULD be
 > included in R1.  If it is not included in R1 (violates the SHOULD),
 > where will it be included given it is mandatory?

Support for it is mandatory (if the Responder sends it, the Initiator 
must echo it back), but the inclusion by the responder is optional.

To try to clarify this, I edited it (for version -15) to read:

            Support for the R1_COUNTER parameter is mandatory although
            its inclusion in the R1 packet is optional.  It SHOULD be
            included in the R1 ...

 > 2. The Type value of R1_COUNTER was 128 in 5201 and is now 129.  Is
 > that correct?

Yes, by making its support mandatory, it is now deemed a "critical" 
parameter and the LSB of the type value must be 1.  This necessitated 
the change from 128 to 129.

Please let us know if you have concerns with the above.

- Tom