IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Sun, 23 September 2012 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E4621F851E for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id he5+DcuekIvN for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849B821F851C for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q8NNPWQG000415 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:25:32 -0500
Received: from XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.70.222]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q8NNPVdv000412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:25:32 -0500
Received: from XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.240]) by XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.70.222]) with mapi; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:25:19 -0700
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: 'Julien Laganier' <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:25:18 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] Status of WG items
Thread-Index: Ac2YWhivjNkk4eEYSaKZjEJRn5tpSgBiI7sg
Message-ID: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA2E4C38C032@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <4FE96F9F.3090800@ericsson.com> <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BD324E110@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4FEA1876.900@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <CAE_dhjveQ6WVVE3BVKk2txfBxNhfWvjbz+QVU2P919dNZ1WO4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAE_dhjtJ_c6OWA9iFXOkpqej2BPuURUumroCTh5xgb3=8+UFQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjtJ_c6OWA9iFXOkpqej2BPuURUumroCTh5xgb3=8+UFQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:25:34 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Laganier [mailto:julien.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:35 PM
> To: hipsec@ietf.org
> Cc: Henderson, Thomas R
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I've been thinking a bit more about the update of RFC5204 / Rendezvous
> Server support. See below:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > [...]
> > - 5204bis (rendezvous) needs one more subsection regarding relaying
> of
> > the UPDATE packet to support double jump of mobile nodes. As this
> > isn't really useful without the mobility support my proposal is to
> > tackle this one together with the 5206bis.
> 
> I figured two things:
> 
> 1- relaying an UPDATE packet is pointless in the absence of HIP
> mobility support on both endpoints.
> 
> 2- support for rendezvous server is useful independently of support for
> HIP mobility.
> 
> Taking both 1. and 2. into account, my conclusion is that it makes
> sense to keep the rendezvous server support self-contained in 5203bis,
> i.e., without a normative dependency to the mobility support in
> 5206bis, while 5206 would specify an extension to rendezvous mechanism
> for support of relaying UPDATE packets.
> 
> Makes sense?
> 

Julien, I would be fine with your proposal.

- Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email