Subject: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-01

From: Varjonen Samu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:09:58 +0300

Hi,

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-cert-01.txt

This new version of the draft brings editorial changes to the group 
handling and clarifications to the usage of x.509 distinguished name 
(DN) section.

We would appreciate if people would read the draft and comment it.

We have some additional discussion topics that we would like open. Main 
point in these questions is to determine the direction where we should 
take the draft.

- Is the draft sufficient? Do we need to specify something more? Is 
something important missing?

-Is SPKI the right choice for the default format? X.509 is more widely 
deployed and has better support vs. SPKI is simpler but has less support.

-Are the hash and URL encodings needed? At least with on-path 
middleboxes they are problematic.

-Are the examples in the appendixes sufficient?

One discussion topic that is a bit out of scope of hip-cert but is 
relevant for HIP in general is fragmentation. I have brought this issue 
up in several of the last meetings. Is there any interest in the group 
to tackle this issue or should be just left for the IP and its 
fragmentation to handle?

BR,
Samu

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:51:01 +0300

Varjonen Samu wrote:

Hi,

(I gave these comments already offline)

> something important missing?

I don't think there is anything substantial missing.

> deployed and has better support vs. SPKI is simpler but has less support.

Since this is a WG document (and not RG), I would suggest X.509 as MUST 
and SPKI MAY/SHOULD.

> middleboxes they are problematic.

Support for them could be detected (middleboxes tag their support on 
passing packets).

> -Are the examples in the appendixes sufficient?

Works for me.

> to tackle this issue or should be just left for the IP and its 

IMHO, this is a problem for the IP layer for the currently defined 
experimental RFCs unless it changes at the standards track.

---

From: Varjonen Samu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:19:25 +0200

Hi,

This is a resend for the mail concerning the new version of the hip-cert 
draft. We got only answer to the mail earlier. We would appreciate if 
people could read the draft and give us comments.

Thans, Samu

Varjonen Samu wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec