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

[Miika Komu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 21/02/11 17:49, Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:

>>> Section 6.2 last paragraph discusses skipping the address check;
>>> CBA can also be used to reduce handover latency here?
>>
>> CBA?
>
> credit-based authentication
>
> Maybe this lost its steam? Was it ever implemented?
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vogt-hip-credit-based-authorization-00
>
> I wouldn't reference CBA if there is no WG interest...

it's part of RFC5206.

>>> "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.
>>
>> What would you suggest?
>
> maybe:
> "There has not been much work in describing how HIP might affect
> IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
> or:
> "Few concrete thoughts exist about how HIP might affect
> IP-layer or application-layer multicast."
> ?
>
> Just trying to reduce the dependency on: "[As of Fall 2003] there was little if any..."

these guys have been researching on HIP-based multicast:

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICNS.2007.66