[Hipsec] comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01

"Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com> Fri, 21 January 2011 15:50 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 []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690813A6A2C for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:50:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2peXu8BEY7DF for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3403A6A29 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com []) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p0LFrMO4014857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost []) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p0LFrLwQ026557 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:53:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-03.nw.nos.boeing.com []) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p0LFrKVE026491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:53:21 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([]) by XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com ([]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:53:21 -0800
From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com>
To: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:53:20 -0800
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-01
Thread-Index: Acu5g1NjaeHLxXqNRIC5A0BGnNLp/Q==
Message-ID: <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B9379A8486D1@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:50:42 -0000

Here are some comments after reviewing the HIP Architecture -bis draft...

Should RFC 5201 be referenced?
- the base exchange is discussed
- the table of terms in Section 2.2 could refer to 
  RFC 5201 under definition of base exchange
- ESP (5202), Rendezvous (5204), and DNS (5205) are listed as normative
  references, but 5201 is not referenced

Section 5.1 talks about moving Host Identities from one physical computer to
another without breaking transport associations. Really?

Section 6.1 mentions "HIP readdress packets"; earlier versions of the 
spec actually had readdress packets, but now it would be more precise to say
"HIP UPDATE packets"

Section 6.2 says "To close this attack, HIP includes..."
Could this better be phrased as "To close this attack vector" or 
"To prevent this type of attack"?

Section 6.2 last paragraph discusses skipping the address check;
CBA can also be used to reduce handover latency here?

Section 8.1 "HIP and TCP checksums" should be titled 
"HIP and Upper-layer checksums"?

This was briefly discussed on this list before [1]. 
Section 9 Multicast says:
"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.

Section 11.1 question 5 missing question mark at the end


[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02799.html