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

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 07:01:43 -0700

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.)

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:04 -0700

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   [IANA TBD] (Certificate expired): The certificate is no longer valid.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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:22:48 +0100

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.

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:35:37 -0700

Thanks, Stephen.

The HIP WG was CC'd on these emails so participants have seen the
proposal, I will seek their feedback in a separate note.

Best,

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:30 -0700

(trimming the whole IESG from the thread for now)

HIP WG folks:

Unless someone objects or has a better proposal, I intend to implement
the following proposal to resolve Stephen's DISCUSS.

OLD:

NEW:

Thanks,

--julien

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:11:31 -0700

Sorry for being late to the show.  Email and health problems then catch 
up times...

I agree.

On 07/21/2016 07:39 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>