From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Thu Nov 3 06:21:25 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 6390011E810F for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.178 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.378, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, 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 MTBat+tPVmQg for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1AC11E811C for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:21:24 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cb2ae000001bd8-b6-4eb29553f69a Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AC.33.07128.35592BE4; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:21:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.137] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:21:23 +0100 Message-ID: <4EB29552.3050702@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:21:22 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Hipsec] Fwd: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC 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, 03 Nov 2011 13:21:25 -0000 Folks, the following document, which came about from the RG, defines a new HIP packet type. Please, have a look at it and let the IESG know (asap) if you have any concern. Thanks, Gonzalo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:05:34 +0200 From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce The IESG has received a request to review the following document, submitted for publication as an Experimental RFC by the IRTF: 'Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface' This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from the HIP Packet Type registry, http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml Assignment of HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus. The purpose of this last call is to assess IETF consensus for the assignment described in the document. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-01. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies a common interface for using HIP with a Distributed Hash Table service to provide a name-to-Host-Identity-Tag lookup service and a Host-Identity-Tag-to-address lookup service. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hiprg-dht/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hiprg-dht/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Thu Nov 3 06:22:18 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 B6DB311E8110 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:22:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.153 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.353, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, 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 y6zv30SZ0WiZ for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB7D11E810F for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:22:17 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cb2ae000001bd8-8a-4eb29588bdea Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 52.63.07128.88592BE4; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:22:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.137] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:22:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4EB29588.2060104@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:22:16 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Hipsec] Fwd: Re: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC 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, 03 Nov 2011 13:22:18 -0000 Folks, related to my previous email to this list, we need to think about the IANA policies we want the bis specs to use. Cheers, Gonzalo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:29:37 +0100 From: Jari Arkko To: ietf@ietf.org CC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis@tools.ietf.org , Ralph Droms Ralph, > This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from the HIP Packet Type registry, http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml Assignment of HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus. The purpose of this last call is to assess IETF consensus for the assignment described in the document. I support this action. RFC 5201 defines the rules for the registry. I would like to request that RFC 5201bis http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-07#section-9 would use "IETF Review or IESG Approval" rule as opposed to just saying "IETF Review". I think it is pretty obvious in this case that a number allocation should have been made, and having the "or IESG Approval" part in this IANA rule would have allowed an allocation without a last call, unless something special was going on (large number of numbers were being allocated, we'd be running out of the numbers, the proposal came from some entity not as trustworthy as the IRTF, etc). Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Thu Nov 3 13:04:55 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 8AABE1F0CAD for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:04:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] 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 jstw+9udpver for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4611F0C35 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:04:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from ironport-out-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.41]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0LU30034RP41SYK0@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:04:49 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,451,1315173600"; d="scan'208";a="68107358" Received: from relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-1) ([134.130.7.78]) by ironport-in-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:04:49 +0100 Received: from [192.168.11.6] ([unknown] [91.179.47.150]) by relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0LU300D36P40JS70@relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:04:49 +0100 (CET) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <4EB29588.2060104@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:04:48 +0100 Message-id: <96B48695-9781-4387-BF56-E53832F99106@cs.rwth-aachen.de> References: <4EB29588.2060104@ericsson.com> To: Gonzalo Camarillo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Re: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC 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, 03 Nov 2011 20:04:55 -0000 Hello Gonzalo, Am 03.11.2011 um 14:22 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: > Folks, > > related to my previous email to this list, we need to think about the > IANA policies we want the bis specs to use. > _all_ other types of assignments in RFC5201-bis are "IETF Review or IESG Approval" already. This includes also HIP packet types. To me it seems like a editing error that the parameter types do not mention IESG Approval. Do you see any reason why the assignment procedure of HIP packet types should be more restrictive than the assignment procedure of HIP parameter types or all other namespaces in HIP? I do not see any problem in adding IESG Approval as option. If we consider not going for "IETF Review or IESG Approval", we should probably rethink the currently specified assignment policies for all other parameters as well. Best regards, Tobias > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Last Call: (Host Identity > Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:29:37 +0100 > From: Jari Arkko > To: ietf@ietf.org > CC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis@tools.ietf.org > , Ralph Droms > > Ralph, > >> This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from the HIP Packet Type registry, http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml Assignment of HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus. The purpose of this last call is to assess IETF consensus for the assignment described in the document. > > I support this action. > > RFC 5201 defines the rules for the registry. I would like to request > that RFC 5201bis > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-07#section-9 would > use "IETF Review or IESG Approval" rule as opposed to just saying "IETF > Review". I think it is pretty obvious in this case that a number > allocation should have been made, and having the "or IESG Approval" part > in this IANA rule would have allowed an allocation without a last call, > unless something special was going on (large number of numbers were > being allocated, we'd be running out of the numbers, the proposal came > from some entity not as trustworthy as the IRTF, etc). > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec -- Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems - comsys RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/tobias-heer/ blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi pgp id: AEECA5BF From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Fri Nov 4 00:36:53 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 D3F7221F8B00 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 00:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.116 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.316, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, 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 Mf0lMi1h0WB6 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 00:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA53421F8AF6 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 00:36:50 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b3eae00000252a-d4-4eb3960b8dae Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 10.7A.09514.B0693BE4; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:36:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.176] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:36:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4EB395EF.8060308@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:36:15 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Heer References: <4EB29588.2060104@ericsson.com> <96B48695-9781-4387-BF56-E53832F99106@cs.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <96B48695-9781-4387-BF56-E53832F99106@cs.rwth-aachen.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Fwd: Re: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC 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: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:36:53 -0000 Hi, I personally would be OK with adding the IESG approval policy. Cheers, Gonzalo On 03/11/2011 10:04 PM, Tobias Heer wrote: > Hello Gonzalo, > > Am 03.11.2011 um 14:22 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: > >> Folks, >> >> related to my previous email to this list, we need to think about the >> IANA policies we want the bis specs to use. >> > _all_ other types of assignments in RFC5201-bis are "IETF Review or IESG Approval" already. This includes also HIP packet types. To me it seems like a editing error that the parameter types do not mention IESG Approval. Do you see any reason why the assignment procedure of HIP packet types should be more restrictive than the assignment procedure of HIP parameter types or all other namespaces in HIP? I do not see any problem in adding IESG Approval as option. > > If we consider not going for "IETF Review or IESG Approval", we should probably rethink the currently specified assignment policies for all other parameters as well. > > Best regards, > Tobias > >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: Last Call: (Host Identity >> Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC >> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:29:37 +0100 >> From: Jari Arkko >> To: ietf@ietf.org >> CC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis@tools.ietf.org >> , Ralph Droms >> >> Ralph, >> >>> This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from the HIP Packet Type registry, http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml Assignment of HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus. The purpose of this last call is to assess IETF consensus for the assignment described in the document. >> >> I support this action. >> >> RFC 5201 defines the rules for the registry. I would like to request >> that RFC 5201bis >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-07#section-9 would >> use "IETF Review or IESG Approval" rule as opposed to just saying "IETF >> Review". I think it is pretty obvious in this case that a number >> allocation should have been made, and having the "or IESG Approval" part >> in this IANA rule would have allowed an allocation without a last call, >> unless something special was going on (large number of numbers were >> being allocated, we'd be running out of the numbers, the proposal came >> from some entity not as trustworthy as the IRTF, etc). >> >> Jari >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From mkomu@cs.hut.fi Sun Nov 13 10:48:25 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 F29A821F8A55; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:48:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 ytBXsMRSH2Jg; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96C321F8481; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:48:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.192.10] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.hut.fi with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1RPf6K-0006KH-Ks; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:48:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4EC010F4.40505@cs.hut.fi> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:48:20 +0200 From: Miika Komu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hip WG , hiprg@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] HIPL release 1.0.6 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: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:48:25 -0000 FYI, HIPL release 1.0.6 is ready for download from: http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/release/1.0.6/ The release is essentially a snapshot from the trunk. Compared to the earlier release, code quality, testing and stability has been improved a lot mostly thanks to the contributions from the folks at Aachen. The release consists of prebuilt binaries for a number Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, Maemo, OpenWRT). From rgm@htt-consult.com Fri Nov 18 12:21:50 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 C035611E80CF for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:21:50 -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=[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 7lXdAs6U0iTj for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:21:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051DD11E8083 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BAE62A81 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:21:17 +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 XcI6xHLAL-jn for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:21:07 -0500 (EST) 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 8818662A7F for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:21:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4EC6BE2A.8050101@htt-consult.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:20:58 -0500 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] HIP CIpher -- AES-CTR 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: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:21:51 -0000 What is HIP_CIPHER? This is the cipher used to encrypt a HIP parameter (that calls for encrypting). No HIP Parameter authentication is used, encrypted parameters are protected with any of the various HIP_MAC parameters. HIP_CIPHER AES-CBC This is quite a reasonable cipher to use. The IV is defined variously. However... 802.11 and 802.15 interfaces have AES-CCM built into them. It was pointed out to me, that for HIP-DEX, I had added the need for the AES decrypt in software because I was using AES_CBC for the HIP_CIPHER. So I am changing HIP-DEX to specify AES-CTR. I am bringing this to everyone's attention so we can get agreement on the construct of the counter AND Perhaps it should be added to 5201-bis as well... ============================================== No on to defining the counter. We will reference RFC 3686 for the counter block format. We need a 32 bit nonce and a 64 bit IV and then there will be a 32 bit block counter (quite an overkill for the size and number of encrypted parameter blocks, but stay consistant). It is my proposal that R1_Counter be used for the IV and the puzzle I and J be used for the nonce (low order 32 bits as they are larger than 32bits). Or 'just' use I and J, their lower 96bits. This brings into focus that we need to specify that I and J can never be equal (it just could happen, it can work if k=0). We use I and J as nonces in few areas. They need to be unique. I think we missed being explicit on this test. Using R1_Counter turns it from a SHOULD to a MUST if HIP_CIPHER = AES-CTR. But does the update frequency of the puzzle and its potential reuse introduce a potential weakness. The responder would be using the same counter space in different HIP exchanges. As long as these are with different initiators, this is not a problem as the DH derived keys would be different. In HIP-BEX with ephemeral DH, we are still 'safe'? But HIP-DEX with static ECDH, we could never use the same puzzle between two HP-DEX peers. An alternative would be to still use I and J for the IV, but to include a 32bit nonce with the encrypt block that MUST be fresh with each block. ============================================= Two questions: For HIP-DEX: how to construct the Counter Block. For HIP-BEX: is AES-CTR worth adding? From rgm@htt-consult.com Wed Nov 23 10:26:41 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 A04B011E8099 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:26:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74] 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 FOak9DYIZoUl for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:26:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232F711E807F for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:26:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A634E62A95 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:26:08 +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 0UaKUhjMNxp7 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:25:54 -0500 (EST) 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 787B162A90 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:25:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4ECD3AAF.8030000@htt-consult.com> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:25:51 -0500 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] HIP for managers presentation 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, 23 Nov 2011 18:26:41 -0000 Does anyone have a HIP for managers presentation? I need one for next week for internal use, though if I have to change or develop one, it will be generic enough for me to share.