From nobody Wed Nov 19 03:13:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9841ACFC9 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:13:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ozK9QG7v3t6O for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:12:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99541AD04E for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:12:41 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79e66d000000ff1-93-546c7b2661cd Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F4.40.04081.62B7C645; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:12:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.160] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:12:38 +0100 Message-ID: <546C7B26.30708@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:12:38 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Lemon , Tom Henderson References: <20140905182558.7340.5516.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <540A04E3.2040203@tomh.org> <9BFCB5CC-FD77-49C2-9A67-39AEB45530D1@nominum.com> <540B2A2E.9040905@tomh.org> <540C3EB0.2000004@gmail.com> <5416CF8D.1070707@ericsson.com> <5417C8A2.9070800@tomh.org> <544FA19B.8030306@cs.hut.fi> <544FC7E9.50301@tomh.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja56dU6IwZ4dPBZTF01mttjaHWvR ePcPkwOzx5IlP5k8Xh+Yz+qx55pGAHMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8bK/pOsBW94K27MusXcwNjN 3cXIySEhYCLx888hNghbTOLCvfVANheHkMARRokFn+9AOWsZJfYseMsCUsUroCmxp3UHWAeL gKrE6zOf2EFsNgELiS237oPViApESbxacYMVol5Q4uTMJ2BxEQEXiTuLDjF2MXJwMAuISmyf VQUSFgZq3b7vEiPErrdMEufOLGMESXAK2Es8+baUFaReQkBcoqcxCCTMLKAnMeVqCyOELS+x /e0cZhBbSEBbYvmzFpYJjEKzkGyehaRlFpKWBYzMqxhFi1OLk3LTjYz0Uosyk4uL8/P08lJL NjECw/rglt8GOxhfPnc8xCjAwajEw7uBPSdEiDWxrLgy9xCjNAeLkjjvwnPzgoUE0hNLUrNT UwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwxh6r3eH1LS32iPCyD1eWeX/da/Njd+GE1nk7DSazKrJ8zvZb p23NeuurjCmPlcARjltbl+gcV5I9f3nWt31hd861yB++ciZ756T3LMxf5io9nhASdtmj0qDQ Wozn+3OeGxbyrKteX3aI8BBfmLA55l/FWb43/hlmnB3bJnamBFW+sXPgEvt4W4mlOCPRUIu5 qDgRAOfxBClMAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/AQPfwM8gWL_hhVuRZ6r6iFH-atU Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis and RFC5202-bis status X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 19 Nov 2014 11:13:00 -0000 Hi Ted, Tom submitted revision 20 of the document a couple of days after your email below. At this point, there are no discusses in the tracker. I guess it is time to press the "approve" button. Cheers, Gonzalo On 28/10/2014 8:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 28, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> While I am sympathetic to Rene's argument in 1), no one else has supported this change on the list, so given the late stage of this document, I would suggest to keep the encoding as is. The changes proposed in 2) and 3) are editorial, in my view, so I don't see a problem to accept them. > > I would definitely concur with this. This is not the time to do further engineering. > >> I regenerated the diff according to Rene's suggestions, and posted it here: >> >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/attachment/ticket/51/rfc5201-bis-19-to-20-pre-2.diff >> >> So in summary, I would like to now convey to our AD that we have a diff to the version -19 draft that is editorial/clarification in nature, and ask whether and how it can be handled procedurally, such as: >> >> - publish a -20 and revisit some of the reviews (since version -19 was officially reviewed and approved, I don't know what it means to now post a -20 version) >> - avoid publishing a -20 and handle these changes similar to AUTH48 changes >> - scrap the diff and just publish version -19 >> >> Our AD can let us know how he prefers to handle it. > > I would prefer that you publish the -20. Assuming that that is the working group's final say, we can then push the publish button. > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > > From nobody Wed Nov 19 10:01:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342161A1AB3; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:01:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHDiKaUtoA6j; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7931A1B5A; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:01:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.7.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141119180111.3761.38467.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:01:11 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/oAj0KcxOVGgBMxAknh3L_JSPbZY Cc: hip mailing list , hip chair , RFC Editor Subject: [Hipsec] Protocol Action: 'Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-20.txt) X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 19 Nov 2014 18:01:21 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)' (draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-20.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ted Lemon and Brian Haberman. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis/ Technical Summary: This document specifies the details of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). HIP allows consenting hosts to securely establish and maintain shared IP-layer state, allowing separation of the identifier and locator roles of IP addresses, thereby enabling continuity of communications across IP address changes. HIP is based on a SIGMA- compliant Diffie-Hellman key exchange, using public key identifiers from a new Host Identity namespace for mutual peer authentication. The protocol is designed to be resistant to denial-of-service (DoS) and man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks. When used together with another suitable security protocol, such as the Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP), it provides integrity protection and optional encryption for upper-layer protocols, such as TCP and UDP. This document obsoletes RFC 5201 and addresses the concerns raised by the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility. It also incorporates lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201. Working Group Summary: There is full consensus behind this document. Document Quality: As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the Experimental HIP specs. At least HIP for Linux and OpenHIP will be updated to comply with the standards-track specs. Personnel: Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.