Re: [Hipsec] Status of WG items

Hi Julien,

if you could respond to Ari's comments on the 5203bis draft below, that
would be great. Also, note that the latest version of this draft has
expired.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 27/07/2012 7:22 PM, Ari Keranen wrote:
> Hi Julien,
> 
> On 7/6/12 3:37 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>> - 5203bis (registration) can IMHO be republished as is as I haven't
>> seen any issue with the original version. If people agree I could
>> republish it and we could WGLC it...
> 
> I posted some comments about 5203bis earlier this year but back then 
> there was no discussion regarding them. So, here goes again.
> 
> Some of these have been discussed also earlier on this list (these 
> relate to requirements discovered with the native NAT traversal draft 
> [1]), but I'll have them all here for easier reference.
> 
> Currently, the registrar has no way of indicating that it would 
> otherwise accept the registration, but it's currently running low on 
> resources. For this purpose, a failure type "Insufficient resources" 
> could be added to the "registration failure types".
> 
> Registration using authentication with certificates could be part of the 
> registration RFC. Currently, only authentication with HI is defined, but 
> knowing all HIs beforehand is not practical in many cases.
> 
> Text in section 3.2. of [1] could be used as a basis for this (just 
> replace "HIP' data relay" with "registrar"). Also, if this 
> authentication mode is added to the draft, failure type "Invalid 
> certificate" should be added for the failure case.
> 
> Should we have these in the registration draft?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Ari
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 