Re: [Hipsec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

That'd be fine for clearing my discuss.

I'd encourage you to also get feedback from the WG though as I
don't think I've ever seen a list of cert handling errors that
was correct first time around:-)

Cheers,
S.



On 20/07/16 16:11, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing the document.
> 
> I think there would be value in making the cause of certificate error
> explicit. Would the following change be acceptable?
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>    MUST reject the corresponding registrations with Failure Type [IANA
>    TBD] (Invalid certificate).
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>    MUST reject the corresponding registrations with the appropriate
>    Failure Type:
>    [IANA TBD] (Bad certificate): The certificate is corrupt, contains
> invalid signatures, etc.
>    [IANA TBD] (Unsupported certificate): The certificate is of an
> unsupported type.
>    [IANA TBD] (Certificate expired): The certificate is no longer valid.
>    [IANA TBD] (Certificate other): The certificate could not be
> validated for some unspecified reason.
>    [IANA TBD] (Unknown CA): The issuing CA certificate could not be
> located or is not trusted.
> 
> Please let us know.
> 
> Best,
> 
> --julien
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 3.3 - This fails to distinguish between an invalid
>> certificate (e.g. bad signature, unknown signer) and one
>> that is valid, but is not acceptable for this purpose.  I
>> don't get why that is ok for HIP, can you explain?  If it
>> is ok, I think you need to say so. If it is not ok (as I'd
>> suspect) then you appear to need to change text or one more
>> new error code.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Section 7 - I'm fine that this doesn't repeat stuff
>> from 5203, but a sentence saying to go look there too
>> would maybe be good. (I'm not sure if that would fix
>> Alexey's discuss or not. If not, then ignore me and
>> just talk to him about his discuss.)
>>
>>