Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Mon, 21 February 2011 17:03 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 82D993A6FE3 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:03:57 -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=[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 L9RrkYgboU0c for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:03:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524503A7131 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:03:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1F762AB6; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:04:17 +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 6X7Pth0ourAN; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:03:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (nc2400.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB1C462ABB; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:03:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4D629AFD.50107@htt-consult.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:03:57 -0500
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
References: <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B9379A8486D1@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D626A88.6060806@htt-consult.com> <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B9379AA07740@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D6298C6.50705@cs.hut.fi>
In-Reply-To: <4D6298C6.50705@cs.hut.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01
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: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:03:58 -0000
On 02/21/2011 11:54 AM, Miika Komu wrote: > Hi, > > On 21/02/11 17:49, Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote: > >>>> Section 6.2 last paragraph discusses skipping the address check; >>>> CBA can also be used to reduce handover latency here? >>> >>> CBA? >> >> credit-based authentication >> >> Maybe this lost its steam? Was it ever implemented? >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vogt-hip-credit-based-authorization-00 >> >> I wouldn't reference CBA if there is no WG interest... > > it's part of RFC5206. So any help on wording and adding 5206-bis as a reference? > >>>> "There was little if any concrete thoughts about how HIP might affect >>>> IP-layer or application-layer multicast." >>>> This sentence made sense in conjunction with the RFC 4423 abstract: >>>> "The memo describes the thinking of the authors as of Fall 2003." >>>> ...but without such text that sentence on multicast doesn't really >>>> stand on its own. >>> >>> What would you suggest? >> >> maybe: >> "There has not been much work in describing how HIP might affect >> IP-layer or application-layer multicast." >> or: >> "Few concrete thoughts exist about how HIP might affect >> IP-layer or application-layer multicast." >> ? >> >> Just trying to reduce the dependency on: "[As of Fall 2003] there was >> little if any..." > > these guys have been researching on HIP-based multicast: > > http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICNS.2007.66 I will look at this, but if you already have, wording help is appreciated.
- [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01 Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-b… Robert Moskowitz