Re: [Hipsec] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 21 September 2016 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D390112B156; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 prb0Rdpvj8eT; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B40C12B151; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC57EBE5B; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:24:59 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s_2x_PqWy_Yy; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:24:58 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [193.167.168.236] (eduroam-168-236.csc.fi [193.167.168.236]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02470BE56; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:24:57 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1474442698; bh=ZYC6FvsIGBtsP/bD6SdNVflDkY4+/IGiK4sfsiy1dk8=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Htd0DxEebKNuj3cXG5wA+htAZqYTSwZa9HFChYUXw41C/xocw5pJLS8UdnuF10BfU tMpVlj/C5Dj6m91KqyuTdT/VABK7NHSC0+z4g2PMJgtd6FC6+9h2hhmmqoRupknyZY dDsDimfZxRpWpqpcScCnfpvEMRU+k4w0f4gQvO4o=
To: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1609182231030.8367@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <854d7796-0fb3-b154-c8c1-0d599526052a@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:24:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1609182231030.8367@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060006010604060308080607"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/mpTI5ed78lq05b_xxjyZjDwWH6U>
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, hip-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 07:25:04 -0000

Hi Tom,

On 19/09/16 06:31, Tom Henderson wrote:
> Hi Stephen, please see below.
> 
> On 09/14/2016 03:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for 
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-13: No Objection
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 
COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> 
My review was based on the diff vs. 5206 [1], and turned
>> up nothing new of note:-) Seems like a reasonable update to me.
>> 
>> I do however agree about the privacy issue raised by Mirja wrt
>> exposing locators. It is worth noting that, so that implementers
>> have it flagged that they need to consider that - not doing so
>> caused quite a fuss for WebRTC so better to not repeat that.
> 
> I proposed some text about privacy issues with exposing locators in
> the multihoming draft comment resolution (earlier today)-- do you
> think something along those lines fits with this draft also
> (mobility)? 

Sure. Warning folks about non-obvious things over which we've
previously tripped seems like a generally good thing. (Well,
at least until we all learn to not trip over that thing;-)

>  Perhaps rephrased to mention that even in a
> non-multihoming case, a host should be aware of any privacy issues of
> the locator that it chooses to next expose after a mobility event
> renders its current locator unusable...

I trust you to find the relevant wording.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> - Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
>