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 >> >>
- [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Tobias Heer
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Tobias Heer
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag Robert Moskowitz
- [Hipsec] HI Parameter (was: HIP parameters critic… Tobias Heer