Subject: RE: [Hipsec] WGLC draft-ietf-hip-dns-03.txt

From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:40:02 -0800

> So while it is true that knowledge of the HIT is sufficient 
> to run the base exchange, in some situation you also want to retrieve
the whole 
> HI from a trusted third party (the DNS in that case), and not just a 
> representation of it (the HIT). 

OK, that answers my first question.

> The HIT length is needed to allow to store longer HITs in the 
> RR. That might be required in the future for security reasons. And the
length 
> is not present in the examples because it is implicit in the 
> presentation format (as opposed to what goes on the wire): you just 
> need to count characters.
> 
> Does the above answer your questions?

OK, can this HIT length be inferred by the HIT prefix?
If a new HIT type is defined in the future, I thought that it would be
defined using a new prefix. (see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg01519.html)
So the HIT length field still seems unnecessary.

-Jeff

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:00:09 -0800

>> RR. That might be required in the future for security reasons. And  
>> the length

While that may be true, it would break forward compatibility.  That  
is, you couldn't store new types of HITs into DNS before all  
implementations were updated to support them.  That would be bad.

--Pekka