Re: [Hipsec] A review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-02.txt

Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> Fri, 20 May 2016 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
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 340BF12D79E for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KTLa8hoE71uZ for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2016 02:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19BCB12D78D for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 02:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79486d0000069d0-b7-573edd9729ac
Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.51]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F1.10.27088.79DDE375; Fri, 20 May 2016 11:49:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [131.160.51.22] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 20 May 2016 11:48:58 +0200
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=c3=a9_Hummen?= <hummen.committees@gmail.com>
References: <20160321203627.12199.62928.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56F98E90.10601@ericsson.com> <CAEhFMchqnp4njqabjo3KOo=Zsmb4dtw7RBTsFgbtdP06wfKRxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Message-ID: <573EDD8A.6050405@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:48:58 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEhFMchqnp4njqabjo3KOo=Zsmb4dtw7RBTsFgbtdP06wfKRxw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms040500080600030402080002"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupikeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbHdWHf6Xbtwg0nPFC2mLprMbPHu6HcW ByaPnbPusnssWfKTKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj7a+9bAVtphVzNk5jbGCcYdTFyMkhIWAi ceHxQiYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAkcYJf48us8E4axmlPg94QRYlbCAtcTUDzfZQWwRATuJJUce skIUrWCUWHrlG5DDwcEsICqxfVYVSA2bgJbEqjvXmUFsfgFJiQ0Nu8FsXgFtiXctKxlBbBYB VYmDh56DxUUFIiRmbf/BBFEjKHFy5hMWEJtTIFDi0ZPt7CC7mAW6GSVenj7ICLJLSEBF4uKx 4AmMgrOQtMxCVgaSYBYwk5i3+SEzhK0tsWzhayjbWmLGr4NsELaixJTuh+wQtqnE66MfoXqN JZat+8u2gJFjFaNocWpxUm66kZFealFmcnFxfp5eXmrJJkZgrBzc8ttgB+PL546HGAU4GJV4 eBfk24ULsSaWFVfmHmJUAZrzaMPqC4xSLHn5ealKIrwqd4DSvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWHGKU5 WJTEef1fKoYLCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbBZJk4OKUaGGPZ5QIKXA1+Cuzby5E++1bDpcoyO/NJ5w7n 6tU/i7ib2XbQLCGhcxnzb72Vj+QC3mjsv9ImdstooVPJZflJftGh779Uq5st+uwcaO3go9lq f/Fqi6XBrpSNnw+x74zuPag8xeIK/8H4oJ0fvhX5xqpuYK39VJ+/94paeI/S4rsWX1JPrLa6 pMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAJk9prOdAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/vYySi4MqNZDmSrtipE1i3FppskQ>
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] A review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-02.txt
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: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:49:16 -0000

Hi,

On 05/16/2016 06:50 PM, René Hummen wrote:
> Hi Miika, all,
>
> thanks for reviewing the draft!

my pleasure. I am ok with your changes, just a small note below.

>      > 2.1.  Requirements Terminology
>
>     In section 6.3, you are introduce also -> notation, which was
>     not explained.
>
>
> I didn't think an explanation of this formal notation was necessary as
> it is also not further described, e.g., in RFC5869. What would you like
> me to write here?

I should probably read RFC5869 before I can understand how to implement 
the key derivation for DEX. It was a bit difficult to follow what is the 
input and especially what is the resulting output.

The reference for RFC5869 is missing?