Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 877171B295B;
 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 mZ3m49ZCqXxy; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DA701B2958;
 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "*.nominum.com",
 Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK))
 by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EB81B83AB;
 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "mail.nominum.com",
 Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK))
 by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C663190060;
 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nat64.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.238.169) by
 CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
 14.3.158.1; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:49:51 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <53CE78ED.1030602@htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:49:48 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F871C0FA-DA7A-43AB-82DF-29449636AEF1@nominum.com>
References: <53BB798A.3080101@tomh.org> <m3lhs3dh5w.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
 <399ECC6D-CB3D-46F7-A9D7-7465608F1B77@nominum.com>
 <53CE78ED.1030602@htt-consult.com>
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [31.130.238.169]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/kkalZ2fbZYJxvvv-2mUwZG6asSg
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, saag@ietf.org, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [saag] NULL encryption mode in RFC 5202-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, 22 Jul 2014 14:50:47 -0000

On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> =
wrote:
> It is a switch to request integrity only. Or to only allow integrity =
only. Either party MUST be able to reject an integrity only negotiation.

That's not good enough.   It should be the case that integrity-only =
negotiations are rejected by default, unless there's no protocol =
requirement for confidentiality.   If there is no need for =
confidentiality, then the answer to the DISCUSS should be "there is no =
need for confidentiality."