[Hipsec] draft status for RFC5201-bis
Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org> Fri, 18 July 2014 06:53 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0891B2912 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 S7crOfjjuh4l for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 181FD1B2910 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26192 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jul 2014 06:53:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2014 06:53:21 -0000
Received: from box528.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.128]) by CMOut01 with id TitF1o0112molgS01itJG7; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:53:21 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=C4B6l2/+ 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=6F27WYAPyu8A:10 a=q7J0aIbBmN8A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=HYWc1YUsAAAA:8 a=IA_2sfgTpx8A:10 a=rREcAdlOb-AA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=I9HKqsYaXT3wm_zgL9sA:9 a=J-mj8lYE2GfJP3BG:21 a=Mluno_AUf-N5E_7C:21 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=ez6fdfsfNokA: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:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=F+Xf35CsVA5iCL2idAVLLfa2CVEy08pnvS47V/hY8KI=; b=gKmALYkIgneAhgLjV8V7GyqHrceBff6whPcue2dbU6kjGo61bLg7iwmdX9/CIYaS11gQUmEe40+MC7D8Nr/huyRjK+6Od+xd3SaXNVdIPrQCI8rh3RQV+YWI9PFXEZjJ;
Received: from [71.231.123.189] (port=59844 helo=[192.168.168.42]) by box528.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <tomh@tomh.org>) id 1X822d-0001mF-Gk for hipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:53:15 -0600
Message-ID: <53C8C458.8090903@tomh.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:53:12 -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: 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 71.231.123.189 authed with tomh@tomh.org}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/xDswX6nxfWYfXPPF4xxOuvWKwD4
Subject: [Hipsec] draft status for RFC5201-bis
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: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:53:23 -0000
Hi all, I posted some initial issues back on June 28: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03873.html and we had some discussion on the list that I believe resolved (or nearly resolved) three of the four issues. One that I feel is still open without strong consensus expressed is the issue of whether HIP is subject to certain plaintext attacks. There was some discussion in the thread about it. I opened issue 42 to track it: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/42 There are a few other comments that have been received during the IESG review. The questions are posted here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis/ballot/ Barry Leiba pointed out a number of problems with how our IANA section is written, and I had some discussion with him and also with IANA about what is needed here, so I will take a stab at this in the next revision. Issue 44 in the tracker is open for this: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/44 Brian Haberman raised some questions about changes to the R1_COUNTER; I will go back to the archives on this and try to answer them. Pete Resnick has asked us to provide more rationale/justification for use of the TCP Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) in the draft. Stephen Farrell has posted a number of questions that are probably best served by starting a separate thread or threads. IETF draft submission is closed until the 21st, but I plan to post an update shortly after it reopens. - Tom
- [Hipsec] draft status for RFC5201-bis Tom Henderson