From nobody Tue Nov 3 01:51:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietf.org Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F491B30B8; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:51:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.8.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151103095132.25799.90450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:51:32 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05.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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:51:33 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol Certificates Authors : Tobias Heer Samu Varjonen Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2015-11-03 Abstract: 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 certificate 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). The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or failed verification, are 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 extends RFC7401 and obsoletes RFC6253. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Nov 3 01:55:18 2015 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 E79511B316E for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:55:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 IHYf5qsQGynI for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 788641B316D for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.214.10.115] (hpf-7.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.10.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tA39tBEj008290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:55:12 +0200 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <20151103095132.25799.90450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Samu Varjonen Message-ID: <5638847F.5090504@helsinki.fi> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:55:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151103095132.25799.90450.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05.txt 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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:55:18 -0000 Hi all, I removed the SPKI and addressed other nits from the earlier version. -Samu Varjonen On 03/11/15 11:51, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Host Identity Protocol Certificates > Authors : Tobias Heer > Samu Varjonen > Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2015-11-03 > > Abstract: > 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 > certificate 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). > > The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates > are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful > or failed verification, are 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 extends RFC7401 and obsoletes RFC6253. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From nobody Sun Nov 8 22:29:14 2015 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 E26F91A1AE8 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 22:29:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 H8r7D0lgyU1B for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 22:29:11 -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 652F61A1AB1 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2015 22:29:11 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79626d000006adf-2e-56403d35b971 Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.27]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A8.C5.27359.53D30465; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 07:29:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.89] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 07:28:08 +0100 To: HIP From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56403CF7.3050100@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:28:07 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7tK6prUOYwcZZghZTF01mdmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxs/FM9kKJjBVXNtxnbWB8Q5jFyMnh4SAicSfZwvZIWwxiQv3 1rN1MXJxCAkcZpTYOvEFI4SzmlHi19UJLCBVIgKSEj13l4LZbAIWEltu3QezhQXcJBqbWsBs XgFtiUPt/8FsFgEVictHToLZogIxEu83rWKEqBGUODnzCVCcg4NZQFNi/S59kDCzgLzE9rdz mEFsIaAxy5+1sExg5JuFpGMWQscsJB0LGJlXMYoWpxYn5aYbGemlFmUmFxfn5+nlpZZsYgQG 1MEtvw12ML587niIUYCDUYmHd8Ns+zAh1sSy4srcQ4wSHMxKIrxmbA5hQrwpiZVVqUX58UWl OanFhxilOViUxHmbmR6ECgmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGhh92bmTp/7TvtPWp7HVjfv5Sdew iimzlyhqb3MRW/k5bu9WSfbOMmfeun16BnPi4jXX7nomv33fXNWrjb0br4VkOjmzJV9V8TWd Zvg2qXFroeZqCbkoBYEv3haprMXJqn1inZ/uydzr0Vq4OWOlitDPOcq3JxyY4J/EZ3EvZOaN /72Tvs5UWKLEUpyRaKjFXFScCAD6GZ4XJAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] Publication requested: 5203bis, 5204bis, 5205bis, and 6253bis 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: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 06:29:13 -0000 Folks, FYI: I have just requested the publication of the batch consisting of 5203bis, 5204bis, 5205bis, and 6253bis: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/hip/documents/ The next step is for our responsible AD (Terry) to "AD review" the drafts. Cheers, Gonzalo From nobody Tue Nov 17 23:52:12 2015 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 3AE341B29E0 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:52:11 -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 chYiw31RxTrr for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:52:09 -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 53FEA1B29DF for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:52:09 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79626d000006adf-c5-564c2e279425 Received: from ESESSHC021.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.81]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E1.4A.27359.72E2C465; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:52:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.141] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:52:07 +0100 To: HIP From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <564C2E26.5030609@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:52:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7oK66nk+YwaspKhZTF01mdmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxr3LK5gKbjFXPH0V2sA4h7mLkZNDQsBE4vD5ZUwQtpjEhXvr 2boYuTiEBA4zSrS2T2SGcNYySnTN3cIOUiUiICnRc3cpC4jNJmAhseXWfTBbWEBR4sbZy2wg Nq+AtsT9I3MZQWwWAVWJI4+PgPWKCsRIvN+0ihGiRlDi5MwnQL0cHMwCmhLrd+mDhJkF5CW2 v4U4TghozPJnLSwTGPlmIemYhdAxC0nHAkbmVYyixanFSbnpRkZ6qUWZycXF+Xl6eaklmxiB 4XRwy2+DHYwvnzseYhTgYFTi4S3Y6B0mxJpYVlyZe4hRgoNZSYRXUdMnTIg3JbGyKrUoP76o NCe1+BCjNAeLkjhvM9ODUCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUIpgsEwenVAMjy+S1vNZWSeceBv1PP6bYqmk4 47x9koucXliNyhLvAE0e1d93rKe0+m72n/DU9vClAKZ0t79zp26dutlpd4W6iLratq44u8VR QqeTMwt57Ld+SfkyxfSl/C4LwwcPXrPcLVtQ/mlP8yOFtgnnXWMVX5pd/fj1UaU16+6jb6/e PLH8ZuRWufPBSizFGYmGWsxFxYkA0BavliMCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch 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, 18 Nov 2015 07:52:11 -0000 Authors of the following drafts, could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in the future? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ Thanks, Gonzalo From nobody Wed Nov 18 05:42:46 2015 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 C8EDA1B2D8B for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:42:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.785 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] 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 dzNS11gFxo7u for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:42:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 876BC1B2D8A for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:42:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mannerheim.cs.hut.fi [130.233.193.8]) by mail.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2C1177C5 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:42:40 +0200 (EET) To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <564C2E26.5030609@ericsson.com> From: Miika Komu Message-ID: <564C8050.3080708@cs.hut.fi> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:42:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <564C2E26.5030609@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch 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, 18 Nov 2015 13:42:44 -0000 Hi, On 11/18/2015 09:52 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors of the following drafts, > > could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen > next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in > the future? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ rfc4423-bis-12 does not have any outstanding issues. It should be the last one in the batch since it references the other drafts. From nobody Wed Nov 18 19:16:09 2015 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 2C6391B3C2C for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:16:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 h-G76zQNXZXs for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu (mxout25.s.uw.edu [140.142.234.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D31FD1B3C27 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from hymn02.u.washington.edu (hymn02.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.71]) by mxout25.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id tAJ3CaAx025124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:12:37 -0800 Received: from hymn02.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn02.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id tAJ3CWlC001035; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:12:32 -0800 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 20280@localhost) by hymn02.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id tAJ3CWQa001028; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:12:32 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn02.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:12:32 PST Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Henderson To: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.11.19.30315 X-PMX-Server: mxout25.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_900_999 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch 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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 03:16:08 -0000 On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors of the following drafts, > > could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen > next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in > the future? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ > Gonzalo, regarding the mobility and multihoming drafts, I have been storing open issues in the tracker: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/report/1 I last posted draft updates in July, which proposed new text for double jump mobility through a rendezvous, but drew no comments. I'll try to review the rest of the issues again and provide a suggested way forward later this week. - Tom From nobody Sun Nov 22 22:44:48 2015 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 154231B30FE for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no 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 efxP4ImZyklb for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (mxout21.s.uw.edu [140.142.32.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDD071B30FD for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (hymn03.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.111]) by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id tAN6iP4i028864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:25 -0800 Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id tAN6iOFj008554 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:24 -0800 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 15408@localhost) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id tAN6iOgG008551 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:24 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn03.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:24 PST Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:44:24 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Henderson To: HIP Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.11.23.63615 X-PMX-Server: mxout21.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_NO_HTTP 0.1, HTML_00_10 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1800_1899 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_HTML 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_HTML 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __MIME_HTML 0, __MIME_HTML_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] RFC5206-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: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:44:46 -0000 On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors of the following drafts, > > could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen > next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in > the future? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ There are six open issues on RFC5206-bis, listed here: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/query?component=rfc5206-bis One of them (#12) probably should be closed now based on the draft version 09 published in July. One related to flow bindings (#23) probably can be left for further study, with no action at this time, since it hasn't been pursued for many years. One (#21) suggests to include HI parameter in the UPDATE, for benefit of middleboxes. Any objection to adding specification text that HI MAY be included in UPDATE? One (#15) suggests to name UPDATE packets with different names such as UPDATE1, UPDATE2, and UPDATE3, for clarity. I wonder whether this can be handled editorially without requiring code point allocation. One (#9) suggests to make some mandatory features optional, since at least one implementation does not implement all mandatory features. I think that perhaps this will require a review of both of the open source implementations to see whether any should be relaxed. One (#8) asks to allow that locator announcement may be decoupled from SA creation. This requires the definition of another example use case and extending the specification. In summary, I think that we could aim for another draft shortly that closes all of these issues. Perhaps the last one or two listed above represent the most work. Does anyone have further comments on these or other issues? - Tom From nobody Sun Nov 22 23:01:55 2015 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 3C6121B314F for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 njJmf0zjuxv3 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout22.s.uw.edu (mxout22.s.uw.edu [128.95.242.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D14531B314C for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (hymn03.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.111]) by mxout22.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id tAN71A1k008479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:10 -0800 Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id tAN717E6018233 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 -0800 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 15408@localhost) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id tAN717k8018230 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn03.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 PST Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Henderson To: HIP Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.11.23.65415 X-PMX-Server: mxout22.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FRAUD_INTRO 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_GREETING 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] HIP multihoming 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: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 07:01:53 -0000 On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors of the following drafts, > > could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen > next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in > the future? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ Recall that we split multihoming from mobility for this version of the HIP specifications. The HIP multihoming draft has received less attention than the mobility draft over the years. The open tracker issues are listed here: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/query?component=multihoming The first one (#3) is one that somewhat prompted the draft split. RFC5206 advocates creating full mesh of SAs for multihoming use cases. That has led to a lot of overhead/complexity, so this tracker item is a reminder to revisit that issue. Issue #5 suggests to add support for cross-(address)-family handovers, as outlined in a paper several years ago. Issue #7 raises the issue of incorporating support for load-balancing across multihomed scenarios. Issue #11 points out that the draft should better clarify the relationships between SPIs, interfaces, and locators when multihoming is available. Issue #16 suggests to add support for sending UPDATEs in parallel, to lower latency in finding working locator pairs. Perhaps what should be done initially is to review whether there is any specification on the receiving side that would preclude such operation in the future. Issue #17 suggests to review two drafts on fault tolerance that may contribute to the multihoming specification. I haven't looked at these for several years so I am not sure what specific changes might be needed now. So in summary, there still seems to be some work to do to resolve the above open issues. I guess that we could perhaps reduce the work by avoiding scope increase (e.g. issues 5, 7, 16, 17) but we should still review the basic complexity issue that prompted this split and led to issues 3 and 11. Are there any other opinions or recommendations about proceeding with the multihoming open issues? - Tom From nobody Sun Nov 22 23:06:36 2015 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 ACF2A1B3169 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:06:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 w7Lat0SA6VPo for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout26.s.uw.edu (mxout26.s.uw.edu [140.142.234.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57A281B3166 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (hymn03.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.111]) by mxout26.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id tAN75k3K028881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:47 -0800 Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id tAN75gVo020421 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 15408@localhost) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id tAN75g1w020418 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:42 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn03.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:42 PST Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:42 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Henderson To: hipsec@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.11.23.65717 X-PMX-Server: mxout26.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1900_1999 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] RFC5206-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: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 07:06:33 -0000 Well, the previous message's formatting certainly wasn't what I had in mind, so let's try again below. On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors of the following drafts, > > could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen > next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in > the future? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ There are six open issues on RFC5206-bis, listed here: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/query?component=rfc5206-bis One of them (#12) probably should be closed now based on the draft version 09 published in July. One related to flow bindings (#23) probably can be left for further study, with no action at this time, since it hasn't been pursued for many years. One (#21) suggests to include HI parameter in the UPDATE, for benefit of middleboxes. Any objection to adding specification text that HI MAY be included in UPDATE? One (#15) suggests to name UPDATE packets with different names such as UPDATE1, UPDATE2, and UPDATE3, for clarity. I wonder whether this can be handled editorially without requiring code point allocation. One (#9) suggests to make some mandatory features optional, since at least one implementation does not implement all mandatory features. I think that perhaps this will require a review of both of the open source implementations to see whether any should be relaxed. One (#8) asks to allow that locator announcement may be decoupled from SA creation. This requires the definition of another example use case and extending the specification. In summary, I think that we could aim for another draft shortly that closes all of these issues. Perhaps the last one or two listed above represent the most work. Does anyone have further comments on these or other issues? - Tom