From goodzi@gmail.com Tue May 3 23:38:39 2011 Return-Path: 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 38870E0704 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 23:38:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TNmyq+n-5SAb for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 23:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E970E06FA for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 23:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so281793eye.31 for ; Tue, 03 May 2011 23:38:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+eFaVtddQ3S1TA8JTcwONMTqyZ1O5WPU/P+B6j8x4qA=; b=fccm+g50thkRwTOspB0RA9CLuHaN/eWyuVipSgLcgwF2iIt34z8ET9UUHutfkYKxe6 2pkXpJkWebSNCfamGs1R5Dx24T7Roqp+aSEHhJRgpBaO2lnwspWGtA/3Boy23+IO2utC SleXaCoU37QAZyXj4Lk1TwcPGedgpQiuDvtfk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bRlIIT4Z5nUt6h1REO7pvL3272hxlnHji0RNCLQwnzUtbtZXT6L0a58EoeuctVo3Qp gCb9HS7evYxYKviTqQ4upWSQ+Sr1LT468nXOT5sVeQ274KTl3CZI5gcSorEdoOBFskmW U0wfRdYeZlw2oR8MQbeVAPwnpNKSt985CH/mk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.35.163 with SMTP id u35mr306593eea.137.1304491116435; Tue, 03 May 2011 23:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.53.4 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2011 23:38:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 08:38:36 +0200 Message-ID: From: Bokor Laszlo To: hiprg@irtf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, hipl-users@freelists.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Hipsec] Fwd: MMFN 2011 (WPMC workshop) Approaching Deadline 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 06:38:39 -0000 Dear All, please find a supposedly interesting Call for paper in the mobility management research area below. Best regards, goodzi -- L=E1szl=F3 BOKOR Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK) Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307 web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl [We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------- =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Call for papers MMFN 2011 =A0 =A0 =A0International Workshop on Mobility Management for Flat Networks =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A06 October 2011 (date to be confirmed) =A0 =A0 =A0In conjunction with the 14th International Symposium on =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Wireless Personal Multimedia Communication =FF=FF WP= MC 2011 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0www.wpmc2011.org =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03-6 October, 2011 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Brest, France Technically co-sponsored by IEEE ComSoc, IEEE Section France and SEE CFP available on http://www.wpmc2011.org/Call_for_papers_MMFN_2011-591-0-0-0.html GOALS FOR THE WORKSHOP ---------------------- Cellular networks architectures rely on hierarchical and centralised mobility anchoring functions tracking mobile nodes location and movements while supporting mobile traffic management and indirections. It is now recognized that such approaches lead to scalability issues like the creation of networks bottlenecks in central mobility anchoring functions as well as efficiency issues in cascading several per-user traffic encapsulation/de-capsulation functions. Hence, with the exponential growth in mobile data services usage, scalability and quality of service issues are foreseen even if most of users are not on the move while communicating. Considering the current trend in flattening networks architectures, new means of supporting mobility can be envisaged in a more distributed and dynamic fashion. Such considerations include end-hosts and network schemes. In end-hosts schemes, mobility is provided at end-hosts level only, i.e. without requiring mobility management functions support in the network. Some examples are the use of facility offered by transport (M-TCP, SCTP) or application (SIP, HTTP Streaming) layer protocols in switching IP addresses used for end-to-end communications. In network schemes, new distributed mobility management approaches consider the distribution of anchoring functions among flat networking entities. The main motivation is the elimination of nowadays single point of failures and user traffic bottlenecks. Thus, mobility related working groups in the IETF are now exploring requirements and solutions supporting DMM (Distributed Mobility Management). These new approaches promise the delivery of a better quality of service together with more open networks, well suited to the provision of heterogeneous access and offload solutions. They are also well suited for the integration with both content networking and cloud networking functions at the network edge. However, they may introduce new issues like security or location concerns among others whereas there consideration in the evolution of cellular networks architectures like the EPC one is not yet foreseen in the 3GPP. The goal of this workshop is to provide and further analyse a comprehensive vision in the design and issues for mobility management schemes in flat networks. WORKSHOP THEME -------------- Original papers describing both theoretical and experimental results within the scope of Flat Networks Mobility Management are solicited. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: =A0 =A0* Mobility management in flat networks =A0 =A0* Distributed and dynamic mobility support =A0 =A0* Paging and idle mode management in distributed and dynamic mobilit= y schemes =A0 =A0* Fully vs partially distributed mobility architectures =A0 =A0* Scalability issues in current hierarchical/centralised mobility sc= hemes =A0 =A0* End-host vs Network mobility management =A0 =A0* Distributed Mobility Management in LTE/EPC networks =A0 =A0* Mobility management at transport or application layers =A0 =A0* Data mobile usages analysis and forecast =A0 =A0* Security and traceability concerns introduced by distributed mobility schemes =A0 =A0* Identification and location management in distributed mobility app= roaches =A0 =A0* Content networking in distributed mobile networks =A0 =A0* Cloud networking in distributed mobile networks =A0 =A0* Resource management in heterogeneous distributed mobility schemes =A0 =A0* Flat and heterogeneous networks topologies =A0 =A0* Energy efficiency of distributed mobility schemes PAPER SUBMISSION ---------------- Authors are invited to submit original papers in English (maximum 5 pages) electronically in PDF format through the EDAS system. For all submissions, please use the templates available on the WPMC 2011 website (www.wpmc2011.org). IMPORTANT DATES --------------- Submission deadline: 15 May 2011 Notification of acceptance: 1 July 2011 Camera ready submission: 31 August 2011 Tentative date of the Workshop: 6 October 2011 WORKSHOP ORGANISER ------------------ Philippe Bertin, Orange Labs, France TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE --------------------------- Ramon Aguero, University of Cantabria, Spain Laszlo Bokor, BME, Hungary Jean-Marie Bonnin, Telecom Bretagne, France Anthony Chan, Huawei, US Johanna Heinonen, Nokia Siemens Networks, Finland Philippe Herbelin, Orange Labs, France Dapeng Liu, China Mobile, China Telemaco Melia, Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, France Mai-Trang Nguyen, LIP6, France Kostas Pentikousis, Huawei Technologies, Germany Simone Ruffino, Telecom Italia, Italia Peter Schoo, Fraunhofer Institute, Germany Pierrick Seit=E9, Orange Labs, France Hidetoshi Yokota, KDDI lab, Korea From rgm@htt-consult.com Wed May 11 13:50:39 2011 Return-Path: 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 57088E084F for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OgHgcMWeEtHi for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56290E079B for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D95662BA1 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 20:50:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at localhost Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABTgdV1Yxh6z for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (rrcs-76-79-137-4.west.biz.rr.com [76.79.137.4]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4309C62AA9 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DCAF664.8020506@htt-consult.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:49:40 -0700 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <4DB9D913.1070805@htt-consult.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB9D913.1070805@htt-consult.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: IPR Disclosure: Certicom Corp's Statement of IPR Related todraft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-05 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:50:39 -0000 In some conversations here at IEEE 802 wireless interim, we have 'worked out' that the first patent deals with EC co-factors greater than 1. Although all of the curves we currently specify have a co-factor of 1, we do not state anything about the co-factor in the standard. We only need to explicitly limit 5201-bis (and HIP-DEX) to curves with a co-factor of 1 and avoid the first patent. Once we work out text on the co-factor, I guess I will send it to my old IPsec buddy, Tony Rosati, and see if it addresses their position (I understand other standards limit the co-factor to a value of 1). We are still trying to figure out the others. I hope I can get help on working through them. On 04/28/2011 02:16 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > I just received the following: > > -----Original Message----- > From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:50 PM > To: robert.moskowitz@icsalabs.com; heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de; > petri.jokela@nomadiclab.com; thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com > Cc: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com; jari.arkko@piuha.net; > "hipsec@ietf.orgdward"@juniper.net; gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com; > ipr-announce@ietf.org; housley@vigilsec.com > Subject: IPR Disclosure: Certicom Corp's Statement of IPR Related > todraft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-05 > > > Dear Robert Moskowitz, Tobias Heer, Petri Jokela, Tom Henderson: > > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Host > Identity > Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)" (draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis) was submitted > to the > IETF Secretariat on 2011-04-17 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of > Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1541/). The title of the IPR > disclosure is > "Certicom Corp's Statement of IPR Related to > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-05.""); > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Thu May 26 09:36:00 2011 Return-Path: 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 28AB7E0728; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:36:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.35 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yw89rBWAH52; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43C2E0707; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 26084E0750; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:35:59 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110526163559.26084E0750@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Hipsec] RFC 6253 on Host Identity Protocol Certificates 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:36:00 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6253 Title: Host Identity Protocol Certificates Author: T. Heer, S. Varjonen Status: Experimental Stream: IETF Date: May 2011 Mailbox: heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de, samu.varjonen@hiit.fi Pages: 12 Characters: 24079 Updates: RFC5201 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-hip-cert-12.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6253.txt The Certificate (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 CERT 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 Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates. The concrete use of certificates, including how certificates are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or failed verification, is specific to the scenario in which the certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario- specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT parameter. This document updates RFC 5201. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Thu May 26 09:36:11 2011 Return-Path: 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 32DE3E0750; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:36:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.356 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M21XDopcfWhc; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB29E074A; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A77E4E0783; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110526163610.A77E4E0783@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Hipsec] RFC 6261 on Encrypted Signaling Transport Modes for the Host Identity Protocol 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:36:11 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6261 Title: Encrypted Signaling Transport Modes for the Host Identity Protocol Author: A. Keranen Status: Experimental Stream: IETF Date: May 2011 Mailbox: ari.keranen@ericsson.com Pages: 13 Characters: 28354 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-hip-over-hip-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6261.txt This document specifies two transport modes for Host Identity Protocol (HIP) signaling messages that allow them to be conveyed over encrypted connections initiated with the Host Identity Protocol. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From rgm@htt-consult.com Tue May 31 08:31:16 2011 Return-Path: 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 8D4AAE082A for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GakEEQMC23vw for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75AFE07BF for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A14D62A6F for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:30:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at localhost Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pdZOlBAQW8iP for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (nc2400.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 173D062C1F for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DE50999.1040904@htt-consult.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:30:33 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] 5201-bis -- Limiting ECC to co-factor of 1 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:31:16 -0000 I hope I got the wording right here and have captured the conversations I have had on this subject... All the curves specified in 5201-bis have a co-factor of 1. It is my understanding that we can meet all of our security goals for HIP with curves having a co-factor of 1 and by explicitly limiting 5201-bis to curves with a co-factor 1 (as some other RFCs have done) we address one of the 3 IPR claims from Certicom. To this end I want to add text to both 5.2.6 and 5.2.8 calling out this limit. Perhaps something like (and I welcome any improvements): in 5.2.6: The MODP Diffie-Hellman groups are defined in [RFC3526]. The ECDH groups 7 - 9 are defined in [RFC5903] and [RFC6090]. ECDH group 10 is covered in Appendix D. Any ECDH used with HIP MUST have a co-factor of 1. Note that this is also a fix to the text as the ID says groups 8-10 are in 5903 and 7 is in App D. Oops in 5.2.8: The Host Identity is derived from the DNSKEY format for RSA and DSA. For these, the Public Key field of the RDATA part from RFC 4034 [RFC4034] is used. For ECC we distinguish two different profiles: ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW. ECC contains curves approved by NIST and defined in RFC 4754 [RFC4754]. ECDSA_LOW is defined for devices with low computational capabilities and uses shorter curves from SECG [SECG]. Any ECDSA used with HIP MUST have a co-factor of 1.