Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Tue, 12 January 2010 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.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 D63223A6808 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:00:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 3hkzESPvBAgZ for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:00:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DD13A67FD for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:00:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A371868B97; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at localhost
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmUMjmToAugz; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:57:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (unknown [12.105.251.43]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB9D968B41; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:57:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B4CB807.5090707@htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:57:27 -0800
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com>
References: <4B4C9C1F.7050309@htt-consult.com> <AC120305-F2D2-428D-BFCB-CB12A4114598@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B937813030C9@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B937813030C9@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag
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, 12 Jan 2010 18:00:35 -0000

On 01/12/2010 09:24 AM, Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:
>> Since I suggested it, it makes sense to vote for it:
>>
>> 715
>>
>> Tobias
>>      
> Are you going to include the HIH parameter inside the ENCRYPTED TLV (in the I2 packet)?
> If so, it keeping HIH next to HOST_ID with the value 715 makes sense to me. Otherwise 63 would work.
>
> Have you considered extending the HOST_ID TLV by one field to include HIH (rather than using a separate parameter)?
> (for example the HI hi_hdr already indicates the RSA/DSA key type, the HIP_SIGNATURE contains SIG algorithm, etc.)
>    

I envision multiple HIH per HI.  With a possible ranking of HIH for the HI.

> -Jeff
>
>    
>>
>> Am 12.01.2010 um 16:58 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
>>
>>      
>>> Tobias and I have been working away on 5201-bis and of
>>>        
>> course one new thing is the HIH parameter that needs a number...
>>      
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: 	Fwd: HIP parameters critical flag
>>> Date: 	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:49:51 +0100
>>> From: 	Tobias Heer<tobias.heer@gmx.de>
>>> To: 	Robert Moskowitz<rgm@htt-consult.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Bob,
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Am 11.01.2010 um 21:54 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> So for defining the new HIH parmeter, I am looking at
>>>>>            
>> 5.2.1 and it talks about the critical flag.  Oops, of course
>> HIH is critical.  So I search for critical in the other
>> parameters and NONE mention being critical.
>>      
>>>>> What am I missing here???
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> the C bit is the lowest order bit of the parameter number.
>>>>          
>> All parameters with odd numbers (e.g. Puzzle, Solution, DH
>> ...) are critical.
>>      
>>> We are going to clearify this in 5201-bis and explicitly
>>>        
>> state what is a critical parameter.
>>      
>>>        
>>>>> Also what is the type value for HIH to get it in the
>>>>>            
>> 'right' place in the parameters?
>>      
>>>>>            
>>>> The HIH definitely needs to be in the signed part of the
>>>>          
>> packet. I would consider it a parameter that is related to
>> the BEX. The appropriate parameter range would be 0-1023. We
>> probably need to check the HIP extensions to find a free
>> number in this range. I'll do this tomorrow.
>>      
>>>>          
>>> I looked at the parameter numbers and I would suggest
>>>        
>> number 715 because is located behind 705/Host_ID and it is
>> therefore close to it in the actual HIP control packet.
>>      
>>> I checked the following things for all active HIP drafts
>>>        
>> and documents that are accessible from the HIP WG status page:
>>      
>>> * There is no mentioning of the parameter number 715
>>> * The next parameter higher than 705/HOST_ID is 768/Cert
>>>        
>> (RFC5201 and draft-ietf-hip-cert-02.txt)
>>      
>>>   - there won't be any parameter between HOST_ID and HIH
>>>   - there is sufficient space between HIH and Cert to
>>>        
>> introduce new parameters
>>      
>>> I checked the following files:
>>>
>>> rfc4423.txt
>>> rfc5201.txt
>>> rfc5202.txt
>>> rfc5203.txt
>>> rfc5204.txt
>>> rfc5205.txt
>>> rfc5206.txt
>>> rfc5338.txt
>>> draft-ietf-hip-bone-03.txt
>>> draft-ietf-hip-cert-02.txt
>>> draft-ietf-hip-hiccups-00.txt
>>> draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-09.txt
>>> draft-ietf-hip-native-api-11.txt
>>>
>>> Any more to check? HIP RG documents?
>>>
>>>
>>> =================================================================
>>>
>>> And Miika proposes:
>>>
>>> I would say that it should be before the ESP_INFO parameter. 63?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xhtml
>>>
>>>
>>> ====================================================================
>>>
>>> So a hum is requested:
>>>
>>> 715?
>>> 63?
>>>
>>> Other?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>        
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student
>> Distributed Systems Group
>> RWTH Aachen University, Germany
>> tel: +49 241 80 207 76
>> web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>
>>