Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:30:23 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Host Identity Protocol Certificates
	Author(s)       : Tobias Heer
                          Samu Varjonen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2013-03-22

Abstract:
   The CERT parameter is a container for digital certificates.  It is
   used for carrying these certificates in Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
   control packets.  This document specifies the certificate parameter
   and the error signaling in case of a failed verification.
   Additionally, this document specifies the representations of Host
   Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and SPKI certificates.

   The concrete use of certificates including how certificates are
   obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or
   failed verification are specific to the scenario in which the
   certificates are used.  Hence, the definition of these scenario-
   specific aspects are left to the documents that use the CERT
   parameter.

   This document updates RFC 5201.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Samu Varjonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:13:39 +0300

Hi all,

I have some cycles that I can use to get this document forward. This is the 
initial submission it does not differ from the RFC6253. What would be the next 
steps for this document? Has anyone raised any comments/questions that should be 
fixed before this can be taken forward? To my knowledge there are none.

BR,
Samu Varjonen

On 01/04/13 21:30, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:44:56 +0300

Hi,

should we fix the CERT parameters in RFC5201-bis to certain base 
exchange packets?

To integrate seamlessly with RFC5203-bis registration, R1-I2 is mostly 
likely a more ideal combination than R2-I2?

On 04/03/2013 11:13 AM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have some cycles that I can use to get this document forward. This is
> the initial submission it does not differ from the RFC6253. What would
> be the next steps for this document? Has anyone raised any
> comments/questions that should be fixed before this can be taken
> forward? To my knowledge there are none.
>
> BR,
> Samu Varjonen
>

---

From: Samu Varjonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:17:09 +0300

> should we fix the CERT parameters in RFC5201-bis to certain base

I would not fix the packets that may use the CERT parameter. In my 
opinion it is the extensions, such as the registration, own business in 
which packet they use the CERT parameter. Fixing the packets could also 
be trouble some for some future extensions. I would not fix the packets 
but rather I would give recommendations, like the one existing one that 
it may not be wise to put CERT parameters into I1.