From zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn  Fri Feb  3 01:39:00 2012
Return-Path: <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn>
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 C19C821F8576 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 01:39:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.014
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.824, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Vx+1imP7Wix5 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 01:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958DC21F84E7 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 01:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 566902133923422; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:13:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 5467.2133923422; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:38:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q139ch79020707 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:38:43 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn)
To: hipsec@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF1997801B.A7E1FAE1-ON48257999.0034D152-48257999.0034F557@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:38:30 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-03 17:38:46, Serialize complete at 2012-02-03 17:38:46
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0034F55748257999_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q139ch79020707
Subject: [Hipsec] a brief review of  draft-zhang-hip-privacy-protection-04
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:39:00 -0000

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0034F55748257999_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

1. what is HI-I and HI-R, what's the diff with HIT-I and HIT-R?
2. since the key to encrypt HI-I in calculating I2 is derived from HIT-R, 
B-HIT-I:
"   Key1=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R, B-HIT-I, 1), ...
   Keyn=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R, B-HIT-I, n),"
how can initiator calculate the key before he obtain R2?
3. since the key of Encrypt {HI-R} is also calculated from HI(T)-R,
 then how can HI(T)-R be decrypted?
4. Only knowing HIT-I or HIT-R can not verify the signature since HIT is 
only a hash of required public key,
so public key need to be transported.
5. In an example of HIP, a puzzle is specified as:
"I = Ltrunc( RHASH ( S | HIT-I | HIT-R | IP-I | IP-R ), 64)"
so, HIT-I and HIT-R are needed to compute and precompute a puzzle, so how 
puzzle of this like be (pre)computed in 
R1? 

Regards~~~

-Sujing
--=_alternative 0034F55748257999_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1. what is HI-I and HI-R, what's the
diff with HIT-I and HIT-R?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2. since the key to encrypt HI-I in
calculating I2 is derived from HIT-R, B-HIT-I:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&quot; &nbsp; Key1=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R,
B-HIT-I, 1), ...</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp;Keyn=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R,
B-HIT-I, n),&quot;</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">how can initiator calculate the key
before he obtain R2?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">3. since the key of Encrypt {HI-R} is
also calculated from HI(T)-R,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp;then how can HI(T)-R be decrypted?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">4. Only knowing HIT-I or HIT-R can not
verify the signature since HIT is only a hash of required public key,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">so public key need to be transported.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">5. In an example of HIP, a puzzle is
specified as:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&quot;I = Ltrunc( RHASH ( S | HIT-I
| HIT-R | IP-I | IP-R ), 64)&quot;</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">so, HIT-I and HIT-R are needed to compute
and precompute a puzzle, so how puzzle of this like be (pre)computed in
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">R1? &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards~~~<br>
<br>
-Sujing</font>
--=_alternative 0034F55748257999_=--


From zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn  Fri Feb  3 01:45:58 2012
Return-Path: <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn>
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 A8B5D21F85FC for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 01:45:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.379
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.459, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 I7Ao5MkQ6Oha for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 01:45:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BB421F85F4 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 01:45:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 566902133923422; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:19:50 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 84221.2133923422; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:45:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q139jjqq029843 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:45:45 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn)
To: hipsec@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFD5CE1399.2C142648-ON48257999.00357D74-48257999.0035A29E@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:45:32 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-03 17:45:48, Serialize complete at 2012-02-03 17:45:48
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0035A29D48257999_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q139jjqq029843
Subject: [Hipsec] a review of draft-zhang-hip-privacy-protection-04
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:45:58 -0000

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0035A29D48257999_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

1. what is HI-I and HI-R, what's the diff with HIT-I and HIT-R?
2. since the key to encrypt HI-I in calculating I2 is derived from HIT-R, 
B-HIT-I:
"   Key1=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R, B-HIT-I, 1), ...
   Keyn=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R, B-HIT-I, n),"
how can initiator calculate the key before he obtain R2?
3. since the key of Encrypt {HI-R} is also calculated from HI(T)-R,
 then how can HI(T)-R be decrypted?
4. Only knowing HIT-I or HIT-R can not verify the signature since HIT is 
only a hash of required public key,
so public key need to be transported.
5. In an example of HIP, a puzzle is specified as:
"I = Ltrunc( RHASH ( S | HIT-I | HIT-R | IP-I | IP-R ), 64)"
so, HIT-I and HIT-R are needed to compute and precompute a puzzle, so how 
puzzle of this like be (pre)computed in 
R1? 


Regards~~~

-Sujing
--=_alternative 0035A29D48257999_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1. what is HI-I and HI-R, what's the
diff with HIT-I and HIT-R?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2. since the key to encrypt HI-I in
calculating I2 is derived from HIT-R, B-HIT-I:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&quot; &nbsp; Key1=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R,
B-HIT-I, 1), ...</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp;Keyn=SHA1 (KDH, HIT-R,
B-HIT-I, n),&quot;</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">how can initiator calculate the key
before he obtain R2?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">3. since the key of Encrypt {HI-R} is
also calculated from HI(T)-R,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp;then how can HI(T)-R be decrypted?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">4. Only knowing HIT-I or HIT-R can not
verify the signature since HIT is only a hash of required public key,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">so public key need to be transported.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">5. In an example of HIP, a puzzle is
specified as:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&quot;I = Ltrunc( RHASH ( S | HIT-I
| HIT-R | IP-I | IP-R ), 64)&quot;</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">so, HIT-I and HIT-R are needed to compute
and precompute a puzzle, so how puzzle of this like be (pre)computed in
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">R1? &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards~~~<br>
<br>
-Sujing</font>
--=_alternative 0035A29D48257999_=--


From thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com  Fri Feb  3 08:28:01 2012
Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.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 79B2B21F84D3 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 08:28:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.085
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.486, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 wsr17WWHcGao for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 08:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B97521F848A for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 08:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q13GRxE0029869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q13GRxdU017252 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q13GRxOS017245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.85]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:27:59 -0800
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:27:59 -0800
Thread-Topic: open issues with bis drafts
Thread-Index: AczaZS8jatEJ9ZXIQVWtKBdl5FTwbACCtO1wAYfApFA=
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF2319E53@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Hipsec] open issues with bis drafts
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:28:01 -0000

I'm interested in trying to wrap up the remaining open issues on the four d=
rafts that are first on our charter to take to WGLC:

- 4423-bis
- 4843-bis
- 5201-bis
- 5202-bis

We have been using the IETF tools WG issue tracker for RFC 5201-bis and RFC=
 5206-bis, but not for the others as much. =20

I think the following major (i.e., requiring either list discussion or some=
 outside help to resolve) remain for these drafts:

1) 4423-bis

I had some comments on this draft back in April 2011.  To fully resolve the=
m requires some agreement on basic principles or terminology, which I belie=
ve hasn't been resolved yet.  I think the main issue is this sentence in th=
e introduction:

"There is exactly one Host Identifier for each Host Identity."

This gets into issues of separating the abstract notion of identity from ke=
ying material, and key lifecycle management.  I had proposed relaxing the a=
bove to say that there may be multiple host identifiers for each host ident=
ity.  But we may have different notions of what is a host identity.

Changes to the above sentence or the terminology would have a ripple effect=
 elsewhere in the draft.  In general, it may be helpful to lean on establis=
hed PKI terminology (RFC 2459?) where we can.

2) 4843-bis

This draft has been expired for a while.  The main issue I'm aware of is th=
e status of the IANA allocation.  It expires in 2014.  Are we getting a per=
manent one?

The Orchid Generation Algorithm needs to go to this document once it is fin=
alized in 5201.

3) 5201-bis

- issue 26:  IESG: randomize hashing in signatures
- issue 28:  IESG: support combined encryption modes =20
- issue 29:  IESG:  Use different RSA mode OAEP/PSS=20
- issue 35:  Limiting ECC to co-factor of 1=20

On some of these remaining issues, the crypto-forum research group (CFRG) m=
ay be able to help.

Tobias also brought to my attention that the IPv6 HIP example packet (I1) h=
as incorrect checksum, wrong version number, and is missing the DH_GROUP_LI=
ST parameter. =20

4) 5202-bis

No open issues.


I'd like to enter the above missing items into the tracker and try to close=
 them this month if possible.  Any comments or other issues at this point?

- Tom


From petri.jokela@nomadiclab.com  Tue Feb 14 03:44:04 2012
Return-Path: <petri.jokela@nomadiclab.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 293FE21F87B5 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:44:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 hGkfkgQVlq6H for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C5B21F87AD for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AB74E6E9 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:44:02 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com
Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9PoBrvteN7n for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:44:01 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (inside.nomadiclab.com [10.0.0.2]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AD34E6E8 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:44:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Petri Jokela <petri.jokela@nomadiclab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:44:00 +0200
Message-Id: <FF42A6CA-EF40-4DC6-B25C-1F22555C9E48@nomadiclab.com>
To: hipsec@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: [Hipsec] HIP ESP draft submitted
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0000

Hi, 

I just submitted the -02 version of HIP ESP draft:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-jokela-hip-rfc5202-bis-02.txt

Petri


-- 
Petri Jokela
Research scientist
NomadicLab, Ericsson Research
Oy L M Ericsson Ab                  

E-mail: petri.jokela@ericsson.com
Mobile: +358 44 299 2413