Re: [Hipsec] Well back at this yet again -- Re: RFC4423bis review

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:51 AM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: HIP
> Subject: Well back at this yet again -- Re: RFC4423bis review
> 
> Finally completed an update of 4423-bis.
> 
> now to NOT get bogged down in minutia in 5201-bis...
> 
> On 04/04/2011 10:35 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> > Robert,
> >
> > Here are some comments on RFC4423bis that I would be
> > willing to provide specific text inputs if you and others agree.
> > I also have editorial nits that can be handled offline.
> >
> > Section 1
> > ---------
> > In paragraph 2, it would read better to introduce the concept of
> > a Host Identity before talking about the Host Identifier.  Also,
> > clarify that there is exactly one Host Identifier for each Host
> > Identity, but that there can be multiple Host Identities for each
> > real computing platform.  Also, the last sentence of this paragraph
> > should probably refer to Identifiers and not identities.
> >
> > Suggested text:
> >
> >     The proposed Host Identity namespace fills an important gap
> between
> >     the IP and DNS namespaces.  A Host Identity conceptually refers
> >     to a computing platform, and there may be multiple such Host
> >     Identities per computing platform (because the platform may wish
> >     to present a different identity to different communicating
> peers).
> >     The Host Identity namespace consists of Host Identifiers (HI).
> >     There is exactly one Host Identifier for each Host Identity.
> 
> Is there? Can there be multiple hashes applied to a single Host
> Identity
> making for multiple Host Identifiers?

This section doesn't pertain to hashes or HITs, but to the relationship between host identifier (the public key) and host identity (the abstract notion of identity).  

My proposed text was trying to make this section more internally consistent, but I think the main issue to resolve still is whether you can have multiple keys refer to the same identity, or just a single key per identity.  That is, there is already a statement in the draft that there can be multiple host identities, in the abstract sense, (e.g. an anonymous and a public identity) for a computing platform.  The question is whether each of these identities themselves can have multiple identifiers (keys).  If so, is there a need to be able to bind these host identifiers together somehow?

I'll try to provide some suggested text for the other points requiring more input by next week.

- Tom