IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag

"Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com> Tue, 12 January 2010 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.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 7DFAF3A683B for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 mnVa65A3mHhF for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6603A686A for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id o0CJp2wJ026095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:51:02 -0600 (CST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o0CJp2ng000970; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:51:02 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-09.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.115]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o0CJp1Gv000951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:51:01 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.248]) by XCH-NWHT-09.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.115]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:01 -0800
From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com>
To: 'Robert Moskowitz' <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:00 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] HIP parameters critical flag
Thread-Index: AcqTt9xRjdUgwuaSQH2crUXcxDj4bAABp36Q
Message-ID: <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B937813030CD@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.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> <4B4CB807.5090707@htt-consult.com> <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B937813030CA@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4B4CC351.9010804@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B4CC351.9010804@htt-consult.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
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 19:51:19 -0000

> HIH, I1 will have a HIT based on I's perfered HIH, but 
> listing the HIHs 
> I supports.  R1 would either just go with that or respond with R's 
> perfered HIH.  In the later case, I would restart BEX with 
> just one HIH, 
> either what is in R1 or guessing it is the victim of a 
> downgrade attack what I suspects is the right HIH to use.

thanks, that clears it up a bit
 
> Tobias, do you think it would be good to share your revised 
> BEX exchange here?

I overlooked this previous message which Miika pointed out to me:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02770.html

> 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. 

Again, I'd say make the value 715 if you plan to include it in ENCRYPTED, otherwise you may want to leave that value open for future parameters to be included in ENCRYPTED.

-Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email