Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00.txt

Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> Wed, 03 April 2013 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
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 7282821F8D29 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id stTOoHGhvUSk for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689D121F8D23 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.10]) by mail.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31500308B87 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:44:56 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <515C2448.7010008@cs.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:44:56 +0300
From: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hipsec@ietf.org
References: <20130401183023.13191.54752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <515BE4B3.5070302@helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <515BE4B3.5070302@helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:45:08 -0000

Hi,

should we fix the CERT parameters in RFC5201-bis to certain base 
exchange packets?

To integrate seamlessly with RFC5203-bis registration, R1-I2 is mostly 
likely a more ideal combination than R2-I2?

On 04/03/2013 11:13 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have some cycles that I can use to get this document forward. This is
> the initial submission it does not differ from the RFC6253. What would
> be the next steps for this document? Has anyone raised any
> comments/questions that should be fixed before this can be taken
> forward? To my knowledge there are none.
>
> BR,
> Samu Varjonen
>
> On 01/04/13 21:30, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>   This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working
>> Group of the IETF.
>>
>>     Title           : Host Identity Protocol Certificates
>>     Author(s)       : Tobias Heer
>>                            Samu Varjonen
>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00.txt
>>     Pages           : 11
>>     Date            : 2013-03-22
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     The CERT parameter is a container for digital certificates.  It is
>>     used for carrying these certificates in Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
>>     control packets.  This document specifies the certificate parameter
>>     and the error signaling in case of a failed verification.
>>     Additionally, this document specifies the representations of Host
>>     Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and SPKI certificates.
>>
>>     The concrete use of certificates including how certificates are
>>     obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or
>>     failed verification are specific to the scenario in which the
>>     certificates are used.  Hence, the definition of these scenario-
>>     specific aspects are left to the documents that use the CERT
>>     parameter.
>>
>>     This document updates RFC 5201.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>