[Hipsec] HIP draft updates

Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Mon, 28 July 2014 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <tomh@tomh.org>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FEAA1A00D7 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y39NMSFunYK1 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3547B1A0080 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19011 invoked by uid 0); 28 Jul 2014 22:09:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) ( by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2014 22:09:17 -0000
Received: from box528.bluehost.com ([]) by cmgw2 with id Xy9D1o00E2molgS01y9GQM; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:09:16 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=EJKVjTpC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=K/474su/0lCI2gKrDs9DLw==:117 a=K/474su/0lCI2gKrDs9DLw==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=ZSdzdHkL1-cA:10 a=q7J0aIbBmN8A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=HYWc1YUsAAAA:8 a=IA_2sfgTpx8A:10 a=rREcAdlOb-AA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=oPE9Lq-L4dSvQ9dhZUgA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=YucXLVEyVCkA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tomh.org; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=M0b62LaHXfQwmDB+OnsiCYIdzphH8EFacrumRtCK0mc=; b=uo02q+O9CCW5IOidPGGXKzpxUFizuefP/gD19QEHEvwJ0u4IMV1Q1Su64tYf+V+vfkaf3z96pZ66dEEuItuAOBBp5dzXHvN8Xd1dAN5xBLiJSYihUU5tWZQr7SaLhYde;
Received: from [] (port=35072 helo=[]) by box528.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <tomh@tomh.org>) id 1XBt6Y-0001Kk-32; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:09:14 -0600
Message-ID: <53D6CA07.10604@tomh.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:09:11 -0700
From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {3122:box528.bluehost.com:tomhorg:tomh.org} {sentby:smtp auth authed with tomh@tomh.org}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/rCZJCtwB-gZAuBqOt-a4ki47PfE
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Hipsec] HIP draft updates
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: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:09:26 -0000

(copying also the IESG since we are in IESG evaluation phase)

Hi all,

Here is an update of RFC5201bis/5202bis status.  You may have noticed 
that RFC5201-bis-15 and RFC5202-bis-06 were published earlier today.

For RFC5201-bis, I have tried to log all open issues in the tracker:

Here is a current rundown:

#42, whether to address a possible plaintext attack
#44, IANA section updating (I expect to close this soon)
#45, better reference needed for RSA algorithm
#46, crypto selections for HIP
#47, tracking considerations for HIP
#48, state transition for CLOSING when new user data arrives to send.
#49, resolve Francis Dupont's suggested clarification
#50, update Appendix C example (ORCHID prefix and documentation prefix)

#48 is a new small issue; I'll start a separate thread about it.  #50 
also hasn't been discussed on the list, but our example packet in 
Appendix C needs to be updated.

Since -15 was prepared, we've received some more suggested fixes from 
Barry Leiba for the IANA considerations section, so I plan to publish a 
version -16 by the end of the week with those corrections and any other 
updates that we may be able to make by then.

For RFC5202bis, the main issue is the recommendation of NULL encryption 
as a MUST to implement (issue 43).  This has been discussed on the saag 
list and on this list, and I don't think it is yet resolved although I 
would like to again suggest my proposed resolution:

- Tom