Re: [Hipsec] RFC5204-bis open issues?

Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> Sat, 27 December 2014 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
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 F37441A90E2 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:49:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 MdyXFUONKeS8 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB8D1A8971 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mannerheim.cs.hut.fi [130.233.193.8]) by mail.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9083308A77; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 20:49:05 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <549EFF21.2030707@cs.hut.fi>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 20:49:05 +0200
From: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>, HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <54905061.1010200@tomh.org>
In-Reply-To: <54905061.1010200@tomh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/nezsdam3kZI1XVfhqIrwnjGR0MI
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5204-bis open issues?
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: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 18:49:08 -0000

Hi Tom,

On 12/16/2014 05:31 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
> I noticed that the draft for RFC5204-bis (rendezvous extension) was
> recently refreshed, and was wondering what the remaining open issues are
> for this draft?
>
> I know of only one, which is a longstanding question of whether we want
> to cover RVS relaying of UPDATE messages in this specification.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/1
>
> Some choices appear to be:
>
> * do not support double jump in these specifications, leaving it for
> further study
> * add specification in RFC5204-bis that refers to UPDATE relaying
> * add specification in RFC5206-bis that refers to UPDATE relaying

I suggest the third option (unless Julien wants to write it in RFC5204). 
Besides UPDATE relaying, we need also some text for the other side, 
i.e., the registered host moves and updates its registration.