Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis

Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu> Tue, 02 June 2015 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BAD1B2BF8 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WR9WzCXNpf0f for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout24.cac.washington.edu (mxout24.cac.washington.edu [140.142.234.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA3B1B2C00 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (hymn04.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.72]) by mxout24.cac.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id t52JjOc5028293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:25 -0700
Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id t52JjKCI031233 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:20 -0700
Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 10745@localhost) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id t52JjKpO031226 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:20 -0700
X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn04.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:45:20 PDT
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
To: hipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1506021245200.22775@hymn04.u.washington.edu>
User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-PMX-Version: 6.1.0.2415318, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.6.2.193315
X-PMX-Server: mxout24.cac.washington.edu
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report=' TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_PATH 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0'
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/hPrV93IUlXKOWbjkNnNcYYuaKjk>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 19:48:06 -0000

I discovered recently that my email this year to the HIPSEC list has not been making it to the list, and I haven't been able to resolve the issue, so I will start to send from a different address.

Below, please find some comments on the RFC5203-bis draft that I sent on May 11.

- Tom

On 04/24/2015 03:09 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end
> on May 11th:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/
>
> Please, send your comments to this list.

Gonzalo and Julien, I had a fresh read of this document and it looks
ready, aside from the following small comments.

- Tom

p.3  s/registration type implicated/registration type requested/

p.4  "A host that is capable and willing to act as a registrar SHOULD
   include a REG_INFO parameter in the R1 packets it sends during all
   base exchanges."  Shouldn't this be constrained to include REG_INFO
only to those hosts to which it wants to offer services (i.e. it may not
offer such services to all peers that it talks to)?

p.4  s/unfeasible/infeasible

p.9  what is the purpose of including minimum and maximum lifetime in
the REG_INFO, when it can be seemingly disregarded by the registrar?

   The requester MUST be prepared to receive any registration lifetime,
   including ones beyond the minimum and maximum lifetime indicated in
   the REG_INFO parameter.  It MUST NOT expect that the returned
   lifetime will be the requested one, even when the requested lifetime
   falls within the announced minimum and maximum.

wouldn't it be easier to just have the requester just submit its
request, and accept whatever the registrar gives it (which it has to do
anyway)?  Else, please clarify what a requester should do with the
min/max provided by the REG_INFO.

p.11 In the IANA section, I think that you want to instead request that
IANA replace references to RFC 5203 to with references to this document,
and to allocate two new Registration Failure Type codes for these new ones:

   [TBD-IANA]      Insufficient resources
   [TBD-IANA]      Invalid certificate