From nobody Thu Feb 4 07:06:48 2016 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 658491B3105 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:06:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 lfmwQv58DGxu for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:06:44 -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 9249D1B3102 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:06:44 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79a76d000000a93-af-56b36902f0a9 Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.24]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CC.5B.02707.20963B65; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:06:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.251] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:06:42 +0100 To: Tom Henderson References: From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56B36901.1030407@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:06:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7hC5T5uYwgz9fjC2mLprMbDHz/EE2 ByaPJUt+Mnm0XI8JYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyrixYCJbwVH+ios9b5gaGK/zdDFycEgImEgs O5HfxcgJZIpJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAwo0Tj8m+sEM4aRon3lzaygVQJC+hJbLs+iR3EFhHQkbj0 YgsriC0k4Cmx+eE5FhCbWUBSYvmmX2D1bAIWEltu3QeL8wpoSxxZcYMRxGYRUJF48GwNWK+o QIzExc4jTBA1ghInZz4Bq+cU8JJY9/84I8RMA4kji+awQtjyEtvfzmGG2KstsfxZC8sERsFZ SNpnIWmZhaRlASPzKkbR4tTipNx0IyO91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzAYD245bfBDsaXzx0PMQpw MCrx8Br4bQoTYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMK7O2VzmBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXHe1c7r w4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2MGzd/kNv4SXuPeLLwqrxH1e5Kn0JWmzA1JzUHfFh2affV pzXnZdWFHYPvzwrVFQ8u0VhlfqMkc/fu9RVuCVsuvlp2uz+xxSXMe/slqwUZnma9S65+0hXS cn7at0tKvW/G1imPZlTtWu1SrKyaorS0v6m+yuZc97MfD2u0MuV/Se/ddWFOqJaOEktxRqKh FnNRcSIAm9ZnGFICAAA= 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, 04 Feb 2016 15:06:46 -0000 Hi Tom, thanks for the update. We will wait until you get around to revising the multihoming draft as well and then we will WGLC them together. Cheers, Gonzalo On 01/02/2016 7:59 AM, Tom Henderson wrote: > > > 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/ >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo > > Gonzalo and all, > > Here is a brief update on the mobility and multihoming drafts. I posted a revision 10 of RFC5206-bis last week: > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-10.txt > > I believe that we could close all the remaining open issues as either resolved or wontfix (editorial); the changes that appear in draft-10 are as follows: > - issue 21: clarified that HI MAY be included in UPDATE > for benefit of middleboxes > - changed one informative reference from RFC 4423-bis to RFC 7401 > - removed discussion about possible multiple LOCATOR_SET > and ESP_INFO parameters in an UPDATE (per previous > mailing list discussion) > - removed discussion about handling LOCATOR_SET parameters in packets > other than UPDATE (per previous mailing list discussion) > > I had hoped to post a revision of the multihoming draft with all of the open issues resolved by now, but there is still some work for me to do, so I just refreshed the previous version for the time being: > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-07.txt > > I will work on publishing -08 shortly and then I think we could consider a WGLC on the pair of drafts. > > - Tom > From nobody Fri Feb 12 12:59:49 2016 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 AC8F41A8A9A for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:59:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 Ico8zp8wzjLG for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:59:46 -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 AF1521A8A99 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:59:45 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79a76d000000a93-c0-56be47bfe3b3 Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.69]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 64.6D.02707.FB74EB65; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:59:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [153.88.190.38] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:59:42 +0100 To: References: <56AB5BCD.7060803@ericsson.com> From: Miika Komu Organization: Ericsson AB Message-ID: <56BE47BE.9070406@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:59:42 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56AB5BCD.7060803@ericsson.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms090403010904000803060104" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7q+5+931hBvu6TCymLprM7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujLvbfrMWXDWuOLFrCksD41LDLkYODgkBE4mF37S7GDmBTDGJ C/fWs3UxcnEICRxmlPgwbTcrhLOaUeLBwdNMIFXCAvYSJ/fdYgexRQREJaZ8OM0MYgsJaEvM enwPrIZNQEti1Z3rYHF+AUmJDQ27wWxeoJqtL7YwgtgsAqoS947vBrNFBSIkDnd2sUPUCEqc nPmEBeQ4TgEdifP94iA3MAt0M0pcmd3LDhIXElCRuHgseAKjwCwkHbOQlYEkmAVsJe7M3c0M YWtLLFv4Gsq2lpjx6yAbhK0oMaX7IVS9qcTrox8ZIWxjiWXr/rItYORYxShanFqclJtuZKSX WpSZXFycn6eXl1qyiREY+ge3/DbYwfjyueMhRgEORiUe3g3a+8KEWBPLiitzDzGqAM15tGH1 BUYplrz8vFQlEd7lskBp3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivKud14cJCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbB ZJk4OKUaGHcsu3D3U92mVe5abaHnIk3EGZZ0iUgp+t/L2hkaw/DmZ+gtjTsBzH3L7tc2KEr9 6T/BJtbQfV3pnvGrMw590aX3+XgVPrR6OnBbhKtPS/3+bvWfPblslvl7Ly5xEfud/OVVsgW/ nGzz4yPs3+5aHi9afNhx58r9ga3B/Vryb8zCvh/f6cx6SImlOCPRUIu5qDgRAPrEKCKFAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:59:47 -0000 --------------ms090403010904000803060104 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 01/29/2016 02:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end= > on February 12th: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ > > Please, send your comments to this list. in general, the draft should have a short intro to the NAT traversal=20 procedure and re-introduce some terms even though it all is specified in = RFC5770. This would make the draft a bit easier to read. I have also=20 some other nits which I'll send a bit later. --------------ms090403010904000803060104 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC DKMwggXlMIIDzaADAgECAhAJdtiEOz4F3oNPssxObH7GMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMDoxETAP BgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMSUwIwYDVQQDDBxFcmljc3NvbiBOTCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBIHYy MB4XDTE0MTIxNTEyNDQwMVoXDTE3MTIxNTEyNDQwMFowYjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24x EzARBgNVBAMMCk1paWthIEtvbXUxJjAkBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWF21paWthLmtvbXVAZXJpY3Nz b24uY29tMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlbWlpa29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKC AQEAsf2pgwYbVXxhx+wwvwrS5q56tLoEhnBUsb3JG3KHYATjfQryyJsDfn90YHMl49fXFORD tFO1PPA+QB22yusgCLhjgawckYn3XBzipClxTq1UHxNq01i/RzBotdrVWYMyP4KmsBzsg/vp 0Bu5KjltP6VBGpcOi8juVeXL10uNh4XpnBbaEq2uViZJOH9+mSr0IEgh4y/lEZKnlIGpcy3v lYL4S4Vhm8Ix9X8INveWuTMdo2od1j9fdEJgtv3cg5KN2+h+pI3oN8n5ikv1xs5kaDCYFunL UnMDglkcAT8k1ebqLV0jQUNSlvDCB2hrOzVFPyEycb0ZNbX1AkOTVnlrNwIDAQABo4IBvTCC AbkwSAYDVR0fBEEwPzA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybC50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vZXJpY3Nz b25ubGluZGl2aWR1YWxjYXYyLmNybDCBggYIKwYBBQUHAQEEdjB0MCgGCCsGAQUFBzABhhxo dHRwOi8vb2NzcDIudHJ1c3QudGVsaWEuY29tMEgGCCsGAQUFBzAChjxodHRwOi8vY2EudHJ1 c3QudGVsaWFzb25lcmEuY29tL2VyaWNzc29ubmxpbmRpdmlkdWFsY2F2Mi5jZXIwIgYDVR0R BBswGYEXbWlpa2Eua29tdUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wVQYDVR0gBE4wTDBKBgwrBgEEAYIPAgMB ARIwOjA4BggrBgEFBQcCARYsaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhc29uZXJh LmNvbS9DUFMwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQTnHDg 6XexOtdZ/qMkn3QHKZCVZDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSxDcrURrevhgLDL28Gyg52cX9LNzAOBgNV HQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBALSVMD6C/sZZz43wJ2r/Hp8BtBigpKc6 CuX60vmkzQ8vGrxeNbPJmkC56FSeGtFo85DtF56xyBd704T18jr1tHTXra8cNP37qABYzgaL aLuGjtqcOnGQY//0ZQfLJBfKJnlJHX9ZB+QFPbhwpOFm9QM2oRYFse0Gjc8LV3WJ0jMUMvZD FyYoZeQ+sak+mObsTRfkR2vsuuB4Elo4MSudCmZqqFUU7gBmp36G2ySJLt/tJlJDld+egJJP 1gXnGkwW2n33Gkcy+SVLj0CSTyy76GibPp72AiuR/wz+GIaCgQ3APVbWXkB3ld4avno+Mq2u 6+2qYphYsmYwIs5SUsh6Zn1OQWNKUtbZbs2z4ALQbA3rHmndI8eLf4z7ZqML6UBzrQjukWi0 6D8yV7OXLz/TzBrp1sdPpNpDVSEWmuC0dJ3Ro8UJOLiO91KtLKwTYOPVlg+u62A5vYN6DVyT nBksz5CpUiVN7x3DDAcjarORQnteoIwBaOeZd/JZJbr900UEOmt9aLXnh8vFZOOx7db0Xccb WO473yOnt/Kr9XX5t2kvFQnNSEI3RkFqM06z+r5WiZd+BhGJPSU80QNOJzzoEXT69DihhWhF pSirFDV6CdUSxKoFD/8qIkB2QXuQUESN0WUBuGy2HOuIqnx+BIR5fGFsaiFEY5pXLHeSvByA b3yTMIIGtjCCBJ6gAwIBAgIRAKAMy8ybmZjs4jpw9HzBwFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwNzEU MBIGA1UECgwLVGVsaWFTb25lcmExHzAdBgNVBAMMFlRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEw HhcNMTQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWhcNMjQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEl MCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MjCCAiIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggIPADCCAgoCggIBANq6U+tfSJZTn4k46qN13HgaeXXsMmGSWShc6A5IEyFboXMZW3lF Hso+/6uO3ZilvB2ipZJhrhU+RL/va+5Chay/PZq9ZZeE9N03OsHfOzlwk7uwojJ34tHLiX/y QoriI+b5DXxfIYXTFO5zlZLdaIxJwlLEQp0g4/zF6EGtodlpusaH07FAcLiIEeTMPRgXcn+8 GoFOvtuVHNh/WHePlrupUgcI9/P54ITXvmZF6xcNBEjsu8yJm1VqqK0GXSgAmInJ4Ga8S6ME 2wgSBRDolxAUbmfLQRrMvLC/tyXBvuLO8uChdzpIWt3QPtMYm2R2V1Um0zANhenIUwYCKNPq 5/yHaS48jCsOBAU0TIhBnirnZmlEbC6ALqwzGAcQMaMD8LFf1oLlWLUQxEmI4YXqBXdP5XnI cMdIEF5BtUBebzBJMMF9dDB2uj8BeoRPSYbpGl7irYUYFpq4TyocQ7qpHdYASC+NV8VTaTrF nHWqa/CGRdp3GHpkgxfOBvpamOK8udHQYQo2uA3YNd2+j7p4C3jkGG+Z6RrZOskPEwtaIHLx BiA141dhCy5EScOyNajrAXQupsDnvr2ib2ef+4nObPFvedPWIe57lyj0n3e1rTqTGIBIe9wj NnAA6MqeaTS9HchPtBvOrah/cTWzXzGjwMz0P3UJqTQ2r5EAu12/W5kpAgMBAAGjggG4MIIB tDCBigYIKwYBBQUHAQEEfjB8MC0GCCsGAQUFBzABhiFodHRwOi8vb2NzcC50cnVzdC50ZWxp YXNvbmVyYS5jb20wSwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGP2h0dHA6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlh c29uZXJhLmNvbS90ZWxpYXNvbmVyYXJvb3RjYXYxLmNlcjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEA MFUGA1UdIAROMEwwSgYMKwYBBAGCDwIDAQECMDowOAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWLGh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vQ1BTMEsGA1UdHwREMEIwQKA+oDyGOmh0 dHA6Ly9jcmwtMy50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vdGVsaWFzb25lcmFyb290Y2F2MS5j cmwwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNV HQ4EFgQUsQ3K1Ea3r4YCwy9vBsoOdnF/SzcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU8I9ZOACz9Y+algzV6/p7 qhfoExIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAG4HIGyvrHc9kEKyYZtxJn9cv7S2dUxuUiegmAvU GHc+JGJyB2jyX7py9an8CsHAxg3BI3Ku9j0h7DJpXyfrlzmg36XYkNS7Ot0A1UqdjGFrtnII SI+Zj3ywHZudmDF8ktdBihHAjuk47B/Kg/Z8JhUJ37GGx/KxiIiXg5HMTdOl6mlDbJaTIEGa gdRcmH3u57r5snZ+qdVSg5UxWdhgS2+zPru/vDbPd+91zLTj9GejKXFJ6fEAOLW1j2IjJ0cy DI67d1/OzFTwCK8wYbhopK2wJ9QTKDQuWRuGoyt2d6yzd7WoAS55JE0BIt+kXDJGbOaK42H2 ifO6ERHbJiEr/oh4KzgdAes+GRjwlSaG2Z0va4Ss5lY6zfwVCEZYdZcjSDpKB0M5tTQYQeO7 QyQPOI6Gb4FXA9ko3sHvAPs4+Pq+UtWjp3y8sYr1vLCER9ePEsgLdCG27mUk9OAijkG6n5oE GOIn+70F+qvKpmm52dZ8b7DELfbuuk0CrY4p0WxH3bBt6FJkPeZJIB6YNXAYHZi7RcdBjLJh +lawbIYTJFIcoWFHAl0g0/NYsjz3DLhZz4+CrJ6SQSYmp7qDhdJAWPiaq3C+qE/h2DZAJwoz 9uHrZHB8zsZ5JL8sUZ7zgqYmNMN+9PxzasrycTJn96Y63AIZdDq1kIHIw0vF4PBTVMZtMYID FDCCAxACAQEwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFAKCCAZcw GAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTYwMjEyMjA1OTQy WjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgNXc024K3aZfvPNAIwLG467/DoCI4LA1Pvob0frKHM2YwXQYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMVAwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjBfBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFQ oE4wOjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJTAjBgNVBAMMHEVyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgQ0EgdjICEAl22IQ7PgXeg0+yzE5sfsYwbAYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMV8wXTALBglghkgBZQME ASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0D AgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQAg1Csq7HDp LCAEUo9BYSSi4PBoO7aF+eHgttAsYenDa23A71I3HbS/Iw1yx8wUTTIrEG5KZpjCG/Ew0AlV 77cAhj8ctHt9gCX/amDC8PWBL9wGGVS0DVkbglDCIHlY7DF5sOCMT4mzUiZGm2I5MJfP5JDS 9hwgVPhJSKzessBkDAgOoglZlTFfHqC5N6BvtGHnAYapO+WivYyajEH17dnO34v4nppgOWZw 2QET8/UTAeSrVyFVZVVapWcR2iuSoBQ0XMmkEEaI3NSalXsGLxNCx2H7SevD8+wsQWwnK8DP AyvyvZZdser4WoxRDC5L/IOTgblhIKJtdAcqUwBFhMh1AAAAAAAA --------------ms090403010904000803060104-- From nobody Sat Feb 13 02:56:51 2016 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 64A4D1B30B1 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:56:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 lkClezWNzENh for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402AA1B30AF for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:56:45 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-67-56bf0bea63fd Received: from ESESSHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.21]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B3.8E.28465.AEB0FB65; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:56:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.83] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:56:42 +0100 To: Tom Henderson , HIP References: From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56BF0BEA.4050709@ericsson.com> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:56:42 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7qO4r7v1hBkffWlpMXTSZ2WLm+YNs DkweS5b8ZPJouR4TwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlbHh6D/2gi88Fde2v2NvYNzK1cXIySEhYCKx 4vZyJghbTOLCvfVsILaQwGFGiQePyroYuYDsNYwSfxcsAisSFrCXOLnvFnsXIweHiICzxNWL IhD1nhIvV9xmBrHZBCwktty6zwJi8wpoS3ScnAFmswioSjy/08MKYosKxEhc7DzCBFEjKHFy 5hOwGk4BL4nXB56AxZkFDCSOLJrDCmHLS2x/O4cZYpe2xPJnLSwTGAVmIWmfhaRlFpKWBYzM qxhFi1OLi3PTjYz1Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECQ/Lglt+6OxhXv3Y8xCjAwajEw7tBe1+YEGti WXFl7iFGCQ5mJRFenXtAId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4rxrnNeHCQmkJ5akZqemFqQW wWSZODilGhgtRTmKp58VrXN1+9c4vfXDt3kHX66anMyw7NpkY2uGPLl9BfJ1xdyrM02n382a suFeQd/N5yvDA68kJzdPv5lWpvBl76reAzM+qC6fOLv9GMeKvkCLB+Hf8rZlfT+m8uzqjD1z 97t0LH3luE7z92r7ZaXe26SmxJosqVl80rzcI7r77vX2X3/vK7EUZyQaajEXFScCAE8kT6xF AgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:56:47 -0000 Hi, I am resending Tom's comments to the list since he seems to have failed to cc: the list on his email below. Thanks for your comments, Tom! Cheers, Gonzalo On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: > On 01/29/2016 02:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >> on February 12th: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ >> >> Please, send your comments to this list. > > Gonzalo and all, > > My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version. > > I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference in Section 8.1. It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still applicable from RFC5770. For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode still valid? > > ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me that it should also be informative in this draft. > > I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to avoid referencing 5770 from then on. > > - Tom From nobody Sun Feb 14 23:06:52 2016 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 576EE1A8992 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:06:51 -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 PM9UXsuvobKu for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:06:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9091ACD42 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:06:49 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79ce6d000005138-a1-56c179079904 Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.69]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F7.D8.20792.70971C65; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 08:06:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.84] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 08:06:47 +0100 To: Petri Jokela , HIP References: From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56C17906.8030803@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:06:46 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7qy575cEwg2VfzCymLprM7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujHXNDYwFO7kqrv9tZ2pg7OHoYuTkkBAwkbg7aQc7hC0mceHe erYuRi4OIYHDjBIT2k8yQTirGSVufN/GAlIlLGAqcfN3IxOILSLgLHHiygdGEFtIwF7i8old YDazQKLE/yenwaayCVhIbLl1H6yXV0Bboru3FayXRUBVYvmKCWBxUYEYiYudR5ggagQlTs58 AhbnFHCQOPJnKlCcA2impsT6XfoQ4+UlmrfOZoZYqy2x/FkLywRGwVlIumchdMxC0rGAkXkV o2hxanFxbrqRkV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkmRmBgHtzy22oH48HnjocYBTgYlXh4N5w7ECbEmlhW XJl7iFGCg1lJhNcv/WCYEG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcd41zuvDhATSE0tSs1NTC1KL YLJMHJxSDYw5c3KZ9gd3VnxQs97Aafj/XqdpFm9wjmm9ZdWC3nXrfj2ezmzcoR00pe4bn79H +U/Nb7LFzAIsicXtCy6xJu3k6V95aL2gzBG98l6NpLTfH1m/+GcdTGUrvVytueOa1OHVsm49 u6S2B9rzsGwS1D6dcuyjVMKr/abf2n5PKHHOOfXTctv/YCWW4oxEQy3mouJEAONrNYRIAgAA Archived-At: Cc: Jan Melen , =?UTF-8?Q?Ari_Ker=c3=a4nen?= Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 15 Feb 2016 07:06:51 -0000 Hi, I am resending Petri's comments below. Cheers, Gonzalo On 15/02/2016 8:08 AM, Petri Jokela wrote: > Hi, > > I read through the draft (draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal) and from > technical perspective it seems to be ok. Some thoughts about the > document itself: > > HIP Relay server came up suddenly and it was hard to understand the > operation of the node. At some point I also mixed HIP data relay and > HIP relay server. Which node is doing NATting? A short intro that would > explain the operation of these nodes would help. > > The same issue came up with Address candidates. Reading the referenced > document might help, but now the document does not give direct > understanding what candidates we are looking after. Again, a short intro > makes it clearer. > > Flow charts would help to understand the message exchange. > > In general, the document refers a lot to other RFCs. My suggestion is to > check the document and add some introductory sentences for > clarifications whenever a “new” node or operation is introduced. > > Petri > > -- > Petri Jokela > Senior researcher > NomadicLab, Ericsson Research > Oy L M Ericsson Ab > > E-mail: petri.jokela@ericsson.com > Mobile: +358 44 299 2413 > > > From nobody Mon Feb 15 03:37:26 2016 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 1D8541ADEB6 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:37:25 -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 hqSNqTLEf0Sc for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:37:23 -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 7BAC61ACD31 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:37:23 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79a76d000000a93-8d-56c1b87190b5 Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.54]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8B.4C.02707.178B1C65; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:37:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.84] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:37:21 +0100 To: HIP From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56C1B871.6090000@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:37:21 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7mW7hjoNhBndf61hMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGbdnrmIt2MRcsbrpImMD422mLkZODgkBE4nOyUfYIWwxiQv3 1rN1MXJxCAkcZpSY8f8fK4SzmlHiyYK3YFUiApISPXeXsoDYbAIWEltu3QezhQV0JU7eXsMK YvMKaEv03WtiBLFZBFQlfnz/ANYrKhAjcbHzCBNEjaDEyZlPgHo5OJgFNCXW79IHCTMLyEts fzuHGcQWAhqz/FkLywRGvllIOmYhdMxC0rGAkXkVo2hxanFSbrqRkV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkm RmBAHdzy22AH48vnjocYBTgYlXh4N5w7ECbEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhFdo9sEwId6UxMqq1KL8 +KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4ryrndeHCQmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGhhz9z0NbK3KtYsRmhM/2/Hq 9cf58wxmKgpEWRYpTpp89ZKAacaZ8Hf3Re6bnWWb+VnkycFTxq0b/3OdteO/+CA+h52lerfB iiZhLoY2Iw3++SvaFsbPOXBJ/MHsGQwWyvwrTzsFVSyccfVZ3ffva1MdAsoLj8T5zJO87XJI O9jQZP4m7fPChV5KLMUZiYZazEXFiQCfUhZLJAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] New WG item: HIP Diet EXchange (DEX) 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, 15 Feb 2016 11:37:25 -0000 Folks, I have talked with our AD and he is OK with adding the following milestone to our charter: o Develop a standards track specification of a light-weight HIP exchange The plan would be to take the following draft as the WG item associated with the milestone: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-hip-dex/ Please, let us know if you have comments (positive or negative) on this. Thanks, Gonzalo From nobody Mon Feb 15 04:45:34 2016 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 55C551B32F1 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 04:45:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, 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 Isxm8I6I-uwS for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 04:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D59091B32EF for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 04:45:31 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-26-56c1c869e3ab Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.63]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A2.51.28465.968C1C65; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:45:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.84] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:45:28 +0100 To: HIP From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56C1C869.40800@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:45:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7vW7miYNhBncO2FhMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGavfHWIt+MVacXn/NtYGxrMsXYycHBICJhKt11ayQthiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4zCjRf+AjI4SzmlGi5e9NNpAqEQFJiZ67S8G62QQsJLbcug9mCwsoSKz6fJYR xOYV0JQ4eXw20FQODhYBVYl7J/xAwqICMRIXO48wQZQISpyc+YQFpIQZqHz9Ln2QMLOAvMT2 t3OYQWwhAW2J5c9aWCYw8s1C0jELoWMWko4FjMyrGEWLU4uLc9ONjPVSizKTi4vz8/TyUks2 MQLD6eCW37o7GFe/djzEKMDBqMTDu+HcgTAh1sSy4srcQ4wSHMxKIryOhw+GCfGmJFZWpRbl xxeV5qQWH2KU5mBREudd47w+TEggPbEkNTs1tSC1CCbLxMEp1cCoZKV346Pbqpu73s4ytTAR PjEhpNF//wYledbVYYp7VZj8ovy4ghh+tx1yMfVYPCPK5GjRxuaYlwkzQ2L/PWQ2jP5T5rj4 4/wT70q/6L3Nsl6efbN7T6Lb4hNX/RIcKy6mqs8Vmz9Zve1oV5/qn4VzlPS3rmFQYE+z/5y2 b2H+29pnMtam3LeVWIozEg21mIuKEwE+GhkqIwIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] Rechartering the HIP WG 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, 15 Feb 2016 12:45:33 -0000 Hi, I have talked with our AD and he has agreed to let us finish our already-chartered items, add the HIP DEX to our charter, finish it, and then close the WG. I have prepared the following Milestones to implement the plan above: Milestones Jan 2017 Close the WG Dec 2016 Submit RFC4423bis to the IESG Oct 2016 WGLC RFC4423bis Oct 2016 Submit HIP DEX to IESG Sep 2016 WGLC HIP DEX Jun 2016 Submit the multihoming portion of RFC5206bis to the IESG Jun 2016 Submit the mobility portion of RFC5206bis to the IESG Apr 2016 Submit RFC5770bis to the IESG Apr 2016 WGLC the multihoming portion of RFC5206bis Apr 2016 WGLC the mobility portion of RFC5206bis Please, send any comments you may have to the list. Cheers, Gonzalo From nobody Mon Feb 15 07:40:23 2016 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 A84F31B338A for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:40:21 -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 C7UPWO2s6385 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:40:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D18321B3373 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:40:19 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f794e6d000003d15-b5-56c1f161e3fd Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.78]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D3.DA.15637.161F1C65; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:40:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.161] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:40:14 +0100 To: HIP From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56C1F15E.8000500@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:40:14 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7n27ix4NhBq+2GllMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGU+vzGcqmMNbcfz3d5YGxqdcXYycHBICJhJXH75nhbDFJC7c W8/WxcjFISRwmFHiTddvJghnLaPE5If7mUCqRAQkJXruLmUBsdkELCS23LoPZgsDxY8s6wey OTh4BbQlLnR7gIRZBFQlnrzdBrZAVCBG4mLnEbAxvAKCEidnPgErZxbQlFi/Sx8kzCwgL7H9 7RxmEFsIaMryZy0sExj5ZiHpmIXQMQtJxwJG5lWMosWpxUm56UbGeqlFmcnFxfl5enmpJZsY geF0cMtv1R2Ml984HmIU4GBU4uHdcO5AmBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiURXovTB8OEeFMSK6tSi/Lj i0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ865xXh8mJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYJywI1Yz0cr4UIzH39J9679H 8OafU9hZ5ccfqtEuXc1zK5njSuWNVZ7vN/Bqf7YpmtoaHes79UzL9djq0oOu0jdniCaWOO5v E96wYU20XniB85s7H9Xd89pO5h799eJZebyopOjBXpt9CYasfX35N0tajoXvl7D0N1Sdf9BE T37VJ+2tOo4rlViKMxINtZiLihMBK4TehCMCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: [Hipsec] Charter proposal 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, 15 Feb 2016 15:40:21 -0000 Hi, please, find below a proposal to revise our charter. Please, send your comments to this list. Cheers, Gonzalo HIP WG Charter The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) provides a method of separating the end-point identifier and locator roles of IP addresses. It introduces a new Host Identity (HI) name space, based on public keys, from which end-point identifiers are taken. The public keys are typically, but not necessarily, self generated. HIP uses existing IP addressing and forwarding for locators and packet delivery. The architecture and protocol details for these mechanisms were originally specified in a set of Experimental RFCs, which include the following: o HIP Architecture (RFC 4423) o Host Identity Protocol (RFC 5201) There are several publicly-known interoperating HIP implementations, some of which are open source. The Experimental RFCs originally produced by the HIP WG allowed the community to experiment with HIP technologies and learn from these experiments. The HIP WG then worked on producing standards track versions of the main HIP RFCs taking as a base the original Experimental RFCs. Some of the original Experimental RFCs have already been revised as standard track RFCs. The HIP WG will finish revising the original Experimental RFCs into standards track RFCs. In particular, the WG will revise the mobility, multihoming, NAT traversal, and architecture specifications. Additionally, the HIP WG will specify a standards track mechanism to perform a light-weight HIP exchange, which will be suitable to be used in constrained environments. After completing the work items above, the HIP WG will be closed. From nobody Mon Feb 15 13:26:58 2016 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 EE4751ACE02 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:26:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-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 LpiQ0xTpqG3V for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:26:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [50.253.254.3]) (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 84F631ACD83 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:26:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4662262205; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:26:53 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id mwHTWrIMmZkV; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:26:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BCF462201; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:26:48 -0500 (EST) To: Gonzalo Camarillo , HIP References: <56C1B871.6090000@ericsson.com> From: Robert Moskowitz Message-ID: <56C24296.5020307@htt-consult.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:26:46 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C1B871.6090000@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] New WG item: HIP Diet EXchange (DEX) 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, 15 Feb 2016 21:26:57 -0000 I will add that the only work item I have is adding Curve25519 as this is now available. I have worked with one vendor of an 8bit sensor with 30K memory. The ECDH with Curve25519 takes ~9sec. They accept that cost as part of the join operation. It gives us a lower limit on the use of HIP DEX that HIP BEX cannot reach. But please review the draft. Rene worked hard at aligning it with 7401. On 02/15/2016 06:37 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Folks, > > I have talked with our AD and he is OK with adding the following > milestone to our charter: > > o Develop a standards track specification of a light-weight HIP exchange > > The plan would be to take the following draft as the WG item associated > with the milestone: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-hip-dex/ > > Please, let us know if you have comments (positive or negative) on this. > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From nobody Mon Feb 15 13:29:18 2016 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 0384B1B2C59 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:29:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-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 onOtY4o54KDm for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [50.253.254.3]) (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 344B11B2C0D for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868A862201; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:29:03 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gurSF46yoSdQ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC6D462200; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:28:55 -0500 (EST) To: Gonzalo Camarillo , HIP References: <56C1C869.40800@ericsson.com> From: Robert Moskowitz Message-ID: <56C24314.8010109@htt-consult.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:28:52 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C1C869.40800@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Rechartering the HIP WG 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, 15 Feb 2016 21:29:13 -0000 On 02/15/2016 07:45 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > I have talked with our AD and he has agreed to let us finish our > already-chartered items, add the HIP DEX to our charter, finish it, and > then close the WG. > > I have prepared the following Milestones to implement the plan above: > > Milestones > > Jan 2017 Close the WG > Dec 2016 Submit RFC4423bis to the IESG > Oct 2016 WGLC RFC4423bis > Oct 2016 Submit HIP DEX to IESG > Sep 2016 WGLC HIP DEX I would like to point out that both HIP BEX and DEX are included in IEEE 802.15.9 (along with a number of other KMPs) and it has been voted to RevCom. That means that I would REALLY like to see this happen sooner that this milestone. As such, I would appreciate comments and will do my best to respond to them. thank you. > Jun 2016 Submit the multihoming portion of RFC5206bis to the IESG > Jun 2016 Submit the mobility portion of RFC5206bis to the IESG > Apr 2016 Submit RFC5770bis to the IESG > Apr 2016 WGLC the multihoming portion of RFC5206bis > Apr 2016 WGLC the mobility portion of RFC5206bis > > > Please, send any comments you may have to the list. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From nobody Mon Feb 15 15:44:09 2016 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 523571ACE24 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:44:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Du67XEYQtjxV for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:44:07 -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 0BADA1ACE0E for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.110]) by mxout22.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id u1FNhaKr031017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:43:36 -0800 Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id u1FNhaR8012542 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:43:36 -0800 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 25667@localhost) by hymn01.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id u1FNharr012539 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:43:36 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [73.239.169.224] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:43:36 PST Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:43:36 -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: 2016.2.15.233616 X-PMX-Server: mxout22.s.uw.edu X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report=' TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_400_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_200_299 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, SMALL_BODY 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Charter proposal 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, 15 Feb 2016 23:44:08 -0000 On 02/15/2016 07:40 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > please, find below a proposal to revise our charter. Please, send your > comments to this list. > Gonzalo, I support the charter revisions and the addition of DEX to the charter. - Tom From nobody Tue Feb 16 00:06:05 2016 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 34A051A877E for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:06:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 gkMsq-dwRgYW for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 688DC1A1B4B for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:06:02 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79ce6d000005138-2b-56c2d86820f6 Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.51]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6A.C5.20792.868D2C65; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:06:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from [148.135.149.119] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:06:00 +0100 To: Robert Moskowitz , HIP References: <56C1C869.40800@ericsson.com> <56C24314.8010109@htt-consult.com> From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56C2D867.9030200@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:05:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C24314.8010109@htt-consult.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7sW7GjUNhBmdbNS2mLprMbNGw7jOj A5PH7klN7B5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MpY1/yXrWAbb8XpQ1cZGxgXcnUxcnBICJhI vJnk0MXICWSKSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgMKPE6nnrWCGctYwSDxo2M4M0CAvoSkz+XwvSICLgKPGv +wEbiC0k4CNx88NZZhCbTcBCYsut+ywgNq+AtkTHkgZ2EJtFQFXi17qlYDWiAjESFzuPMEHU CEqcnPkErJ5TQF9i0Z7brCA2s4CBxJFFc6BseYntb+cwQ+zSllj+rIVlAqPALCTts5C0zELS soCReRWjaHFqcXFuupGRXmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYFAe3PLbagfjweeOhxgFOBiVeHgLIg6F CbEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh3bgdKMSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZx3jfP6MCGB9MSS1OzU 1ILUIpgsEwenVAPjgtxUtvrZzJWFC1XuzVz+XjXJbK1LZ3X/45XT+Ttrv09vmHQs2SH8euX8 mZ/1U/Yv+8IoFct9Ladgdlk82xKNDSKb9KQmqM0zWPzM3CbZadXfqAcnL+a9qeGPfpqRvHLP lnUl2cEK71+ap7kFxl8+6ZtxibVVYaHTdZUzU84sCI9QK007l/NQiaU4I9FQi7moOBEA7pou TkYCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Rechartering the HIP WG 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, 16 Feb 2016 08:06:04 -0000 Hi Bob, sure, nothing prevents us to progress faster than the milestones... but considering that we are around 5 years late with some of our existing milestones, I did not want to be too aggressive ;-) Cheers, Gonzalo On 15/02/2016 11:28 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > > On 02/15/2016 07:45 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have talked with our AD and he has agreed to let us finish our >> already-chartered items, add the HIP DEX to our charter, finish it, and >> then close the WG. >> >> I have prepared the following Milestones to implement the plan above: >> >> Milestones >> >> Jan 2017 Close the WG >> Dec 2016 Submit RFC4423bis to the IESG >> Oct 2016 WGLC RFC4423bis >> Oct 2016 Submit HIP DEX to IESG >> Sep 2016 WGLC HIP DEX > > I would like to point out that both HIP BEX and DEX are included in IEEE > 802.15.9 (along with a number of other KMPs) and it has been voted to > RevCom. That means that I would REALLY like to see this happen sooner > that this milestone. As such, I would appreciate comments and will do > my best to respond to them. > > thank you. > >> Jun 2016 Submit the multihoming portion of RFC5206bis to the IESG >> Jun 2016 Submit the mobility portion of RFC5206bis to the IESG >> Apr 2016 Submit RFC5770bis to the IESG >> Apr 2016 WGLC the multihoming portion of RFC5206bis >> Apr 2016 WGLC the mobility portion of RFC5206bis >> >> >> Please, send any comments you may have to the list. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> > From nobody Tue Feb 16 02:42:37 2016 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 C5D531B2E40 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:42:31 -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] 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 bQOkudq8fbGm for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:41:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CBB1ACF60 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:41:55 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-5f-56c2fcf1c65d Received: from ESESSHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.21]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 67.56.28465.1FCF2C65; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:41:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.182] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:41:52 +0100 To: References: <56C1B871.6090000@ericsson.com> From: Miika Komu Organization: Ericsson AB Message-ID: <56C2FCF0.9020807@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:41:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C1B871.6090000@ericsson.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060703090402040206010705" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7qO7HP4fCDFrmmFpMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGb/ucBY8Nq5YvOMfYwPjKsMuRg4OCQETiY0X0roYOYFMMYkL 99azdTFycQgJHGaUWPZnLguEs4ZRYsnnqUwgVcICVhJ/12xkA7FFBEQlpnw4zQwySEhAW2Lz xyqQMJuAlsSqO9eZQWx+AUmJDQ27wWxeoJK9f1+CjWERUJX482w/mC0qECFxuLOLHaJGUOLk zCcsIDangI7Eticn2EFuYBboZpS4tWUyG8QuFYmLx4InMArMQtIyC1kZSIJZwFbiztzdzBC2 tsSyha+hbGuJGb8OQtUoSkzpfsgOYZtKvD76kRHCNpZYtu4v2wJGjlWMosWpxcW56UbGeqlF mcnFxfl5enmpJZsYgYF/cMtv3R2Mq187HmIU4GBU4uEtiDgUJsSaWFZcmXuIUQVozqMNqy8w SrHk5eelKonw/nsFlOZNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM67xnl9mJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyW iYNTqoFRfJvINYMN/1keXIk8e5vz7O5aoyTr1RLztthdXRVRyKd/n2nvRHH+bZf6nz5f8m1D Vpya9ofQ/3U5llHxXFctftms4CxOcsvtWh8fx7LsVOiVVZ+rklZmMRkYHvEsVOD1N2tslrzi 8IHNTHBzzzuB0NyKA7mbpj96MoNzpZBchlBjfrh1sqISS3FGoqEWc1FxIgDUPAclhAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] New WG item: HIP Diet EXchange (DEX) 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, 16 Feb 2016 10:42:31 -0000 --------------ms060703090402040206010705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 02/15/2016 01:37 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Folks, > > I have talked with our AD and he is OK with adding the following > milestone to our charter: > > o Develop a standards track specification of a light-weight HIP exchang= e > > The plan would be to take the following draft as the WG item associated= > with the milestone: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-hip-dex/ > > Please, let us know if you have comments (positive or negative) on this= =2E seems fine to me. I can review the draft when I have some free cycles. --------------ms060703090402040206010705 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC DKMwggXlMIIDzaADAgECAhAJdtiEOz4F3oNPssxObH7GMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMDoxETAP BgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMSUwIwYDVQQDDBxFcmljc3NvbiBOTCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBIHYy MB4XDTE0MTIxNTEyNDQwMVoXDTE3MTIxNTEyNDQwMFowYjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24x EzARBgNVBAMMCk1paWthIEtvbXUxJjAkBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWF21paWthLmtvbXVAZXJpY3Nz b24uY29tMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlbWlpa29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKC AQEAsf2pgwYbVXxhx+wwvwrS5q56tLoEhnBUsb3JG3KHYATjfQryyJsDfn90YHMl49fXFORD tFO1PPA+QB22yusgCLhjgawckYn3XBzipClxTq1UHxNq01i/RzBotdrVWYMyP4KmsBzsg/vp 0Bu5KjltP6VBGpcOi8juVeXL10uNh4XpnBbaEq2uViZJOH9+mSr0IEgh4y/lEZKnlIGpcy3v lYL4S4Vhm8Ix9X8INveWuTMdo2od1j9fdEJgtv3cg5KN2+h+pI3oN8n5ikv1xs5kaDCYFunL UnMDglkcAT8k1ebqLV0jQUNSlvDCB2hrOzVFPyEycb0ZNbX1AkOTVnlrNwIDAQABo4IBvTCC AbkwSAYDVR0fBEEwPzA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybC50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vZXJpY3Nz b25ubGluZGl2aWR1YWxjYXYyLmNybDCBggYIKwYBBQUHAQEEdjB0MCgGCCsGAQUFBzABhhxo dHRwOi8vb2NzcDIudHJ1c3QudGVsaWEuY29tMEgGCCsGAQUFBzAChjxodHRwOi8vY2EudHJ1 c3QudGVsaWFzb25lcmEuY29tL2VyaWNzc29ubmxpbmRpdmlkdWFsY2F2Mi5jZXIwIgYDVR0R BBswGYEXbWlpa2Eua29tdUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wVQYDVR0gBE4wTDBKBgwrBgEEAYIPAgMB ARIwOjA4BggrBgEFBQcCARYsaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhc29uZXJh LmNvbS9DUFMwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQTnHDg 6XexOtdZ/qMkn3QHKZCVZDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSxDcrURrevhgLDL28Gyg52cX9LNzAOBgNV HQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBALSVMD6C/sZZz43wJ2r/Hp8BtBigpKc6 CuX60vmkzQ8vGrxeNbPJmkC56FSeGtFo85DtF56xyBd704T18jr1tHTXra8cNP37qABYzgaL aLuGjtqcOnGQY//0ZQfLJBfKJnlJHX9ZB+QFPbhwpOFm9QM2oRYFse0Gjc8LV3WJ0jMUMvZD FyYoZeQ+sak+mObsTRfkR2vsuuB4Elo4MSudCmZqqFUU7gBmp36G2ySJLt/tJlJDld+egJJP 1gXnGkwW2n33Gkcy+SVLj0CSTyy76GibPp72AiuR/wz+GIaCgQ3APVbWXkB3ld4avno+Mq2u 6+2qYphYsmYwIs5SUsh6Zn1OQWNKUtbZbs2z4ALQbA3rHmndI8eLf4z7ZqML6UBzrQjukWi0 6D8yV7OXLz/TzBrp1sdPpNpDVSEWmuC0dJ3Ro8UJOLiO91KtLKwTYOPVlg+u62A5vYN6DVyT nBksz5CpUiVN7x3DDAcjarORQnteoIwBaOeZd/JZJbr900UEOmt9aLXnh8vFZOOx7db0Xccb WO473yOnt/Kr9XX5t2kvFQnNSEI3RkFqM06z+r5WiZd+BhGJPSU80QNOJzzoEXT69DihhWhF pSirFDV6CdUSxKoFD/8qIkB2QXuQUESN0WUBuGy2HOuIqnx+BIR5fGFsaiFEY5pXLHeSvByA b3yTMIIGtjCCBJ6gAwIBAgIRAKAMy8ybmZjs4jpw9HzBwFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwNzEU MBIGA1UECgwLVGVsaWFTb25lcmExHzAdBgNVBAMMFlRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEw HhcNMTQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWhcNMjQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEl MCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MjCCAiIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggIPADCCAgoCggIBANq6U+tfSJZTn4k46qN13HgaeXXsMmGSWShc6A5IEyFboXMZW3lF Hso+/6uO3ZilvB2ipZJhrhU+RL/va+5Chay/PZq9ZZeE9N03OsHfOzlwk7uwojJ34tHLiX/y QoriI+b5DXxfIYXTFO5zlZLdaIxJwlLEQp0g4/zF6EGtodlpusaH07FAcLiIEeTMPRgXcn+8 GoFOvtuVHNh/WHePlrupUgcI9/P54ITXvmZF6xcNBEjsu8yJm1VqqK0GXSgAmInJ4Ga8S6ME 2wgSBRDolxAUbmfLQRrMvLC/tyXBvuLO8uChdzpIWt3QPtMYm2R2V1Um0zANhenIUwYCKNPq 5/yHaS48jCsOBAU0TIhBnirnZmlEbC6ALqwzGAcQMaMD8LFf1oLlWLUQxEmI4YXqBXdP5XnI cMdIEF5BtUBebzBJMMF9dDB2uj8BeoRPSYbpGl7irYUYFpq4TyocQ7qpHdYASC+NV8VTaTrF nHWqa/CGRdp3GHpkgxfOBvpamOK8udHQYQo2uA3YNd2+j7p4C3jkGG+Z6RrZOskPEwtaIHLx BiA141dhCy5EScOyNajrAXQupsDnvr2ib2ef+4nObPFvedPWIe57lyj0n3e1rTqTGIBIe9wj NnAA6MqeaTS9HchPtBvOrah/cTWzXzGjwMz0P3UJqTQ2r5EAu12/W5kpAgMBAAGjggG4MIIB tDCBigYIKwYBBQUHAQEEfjB8MC0GCCsGAQUFBzABhiFodHRwOi8vb2NzcC50cnVzdC50ZWxp YXNvbmVyYS5jb20wSwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGP2h0dHA6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlh c29uZXJhLmNvbS90ZWxpYXNvbmVyYXJvb3RjYXYxLmNlcjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEA MFUGA1UdIAROMEwwSgYMKwYBBAGCDwIDAQECMDowOAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWLGh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vQ1BTMEsGA1UdHwREMEIwQKA+oDyGOmh0 dHA6Ly9jcmwtMy50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vdGVsaWFzb25lcmFyb290Y2F2MS5j cmwwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNV HQ4EFgQUsQ3K1Ea3r4YCwy9vBsoOdnF/SzcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU8I9ZOACz9Y+algzV6/p7 qhfoExIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAG4HIGyvrHc9kEKyYZtxJn9cv7S2dUxuUiegmAvU GHc+JGJyB2jyX7py9an8CsHAxg3BI3Ku9j0h7DJpXyfrlzmg36XYkNS7Ot0A1UqdjGFrtnII SI+Zj3ywHZudmDF8ktdBihHAjuk47B/Kg/Z8JhUJ37GGx/KxiIiXg5HMTdOl6mlDbJaTIEGa gdRcmH3u57r5snZ+qdVSg5UxWdhgS2+zPru/vDbPd+91zLTj9GejKXFJ6fEAOLW1j2IjJ0cy DI67d1/OzFTwCK8wYbhopK2wJ9QTKDQuWRuGoyt2d6yzd7WoAS55JE0BIt+kXDJGbOaK42H2 ifO6ERHbJiEr/oh4KzgdAes+GRjwlSaG2Z0va4Ss5lY6zfwVCEZYdZcjSDpKB0M5tTQYQeO7 QyQPOI6Gb4FXA9ko3sHvAPs4+Pq+UtWjp3y8sYr1vLCER9ePEsgLdCG27mUk9OAijkG6n5oE GOIn+70F+qvKpmm52dZ8b7DELfbuuk0CrY4p0WxH3bBt6FJkPeZJIB6YNXAYHZi7RcdBjLJh +lawbIYTJFIcoWFHAl0g0/NYsjz3DLhZz4+CrJ6SQSYmp7qDhdJAWPiaq3C+qE/h2DZAJwoz 9uHrZHB8zsZ5JL8sUZ7zgqYmNMN+9PxzasrycTJn96Y63AIZdDq1kIHIw0vF4PBTVMZtMYID FDCCAxACAQEwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFAKCCAZcw GAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTYwMjE2MTA0MTUy WjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgn9BQsu7zUZNNrIOcSH7vDfg/kydahW1Kqa6czgfQ4nIwXQYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMVAwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjBfBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFQ oE4wOjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJTAjBgNVBAMMHEVyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgQ0EgdjICEAl22IQ7PgXeg0+yzE5sfsYwbAYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMV8wXTALBglghkgBZQME ASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0D AgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQCk0b72wKhF tfgVAnrv5ROXlneKXlTmeMfYDF9GQP1p2Fhy9IBsY2PwqQ78hN1JVfd//6wdIuFUkju/S3sb D0oMQzEzMQX9lhaB9TlM/DR61ACPbPvPvZyfPeecd3ijHramyB6Z6/REXHBYKW4OaVd2SdHE jCVLOyzcYWuoXCCpuAiCJ0SOSsMAIwGwSWBcJdkbixqVjndtkDdF4s6gRQkkcUCNZ8+jKmSu 9FDZEat54DuRwMDQx4HqcpBXnwnTbirs8/mbCHH54XPqkwhixC7qPaNlyJHDwoaK16mZJUed q58byVgufLMCFCTzkyZEf5rVV34xZHPGbaTnvCorqjjoAAAAAAAA --------------ms060703090402040206010705-- From nobody Tue Feb 16 05:59:39 2016 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 47D681B2D3E for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:59:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 JDVwapWshZee for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:59:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4075B1B317A for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:59:33 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-51-56c32b433ed2 Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.27]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D4.7F.28465.34B23C65; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:59:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from m46.nomadiclab.com (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:59:31 +0100 To: Petri Jokela , HIP References: <56C17906.8030803@ericsson.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ari_Ker=c3=a4nen?= Message-ID: <56C32B41.8020209@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:59:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C17906.8030803@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7tK6z9uEwgyVvTC2mLprM7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujMt9bxgL2ngrFn0VamDcxdXFyMkhIWAi8fxXNzuELSZx4d56 ti5GLg4hgcOMEjc2fmWFcNYxSvzu3MsEUiUsYCfxeO5ERhBbRMBZ4sSVD2C2kECixNvpv1hA bGYBNYllP3aC1bMJ2Er8bt8DZvMKaEtsuDITqJ6Dg0VAVeLeVheQsKhAmsT+2b+hSgQlTs58 AjaGU0BHovHRXDaIkRYSM+efZ4Sw5SWat85mhlirKnH13yvGCYyCs5C0z0LSMgtJywJG5lWM osWpxcW56UbGeqlFmcnFxfl5enmpJZsYgYF5cMtv3R2Mq187HmIU4GBU4uEtiDgUJsSaWFZc mXuIUYKDWUmE998roBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXHeNc7rw4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2Cy TBycUg2M0wI0zcq87SOqXu6aNdno58GDyr76K5pnft35l/GizsSCxSevCZ8oUXV/s/qkkvYd /RsL203eLOS5NvNF6YEPkWnLr6XueKbBtfJKYOw5lvRFYQL8jqfsPpbH/DrlyKaeyzapM2My L+PznUzn5B5VFE1J3DdHe6Jy/6QY2a5cd0Vd5S3x/04fUGIpzkg01GIuKk4EAE8t0yxIAgAA Archived-At: Cc: Jan Melen Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 16 Feb 2016 13:59:36 -0000 Thank you for the review Petri! We will add introductory text to the draft to cover your comments. Cheers, Ari On 15/02/16 09:06, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > I am resending Petri's comments below. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > On 15/02/2016 8:08 AM, Petri Jokela wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I read through the draft (draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal) and from >> technical perspective it seems to be ok. Some thoughts about the >> document itself: >> >> HIP Relay server came up suddenly and it was hard to understand the >> operation of the node. At some point I also mixed HIP data relay and >> HIP relay server. Which node is doing NATting? A short intro that would >> explain the operation of these nodes would help. >> >> The same issue came up with Address candidates. Reading the referenced >> document might help, but now the document does not give direct >> understanding what candidates we are looking after. Again, a short intro >> makes it clearer. >> >> Flow charts would help to understand the message exchange. >> >> In general, the document refers a lot to other RFCs. My suggestion is to >> check the document and add some introductory sentences for >> clarifications whenever a “new” node or operation is introduced. >> >> Petri >> >> -- >> Petri Jokela >> Senior researcher >> NomadicLab, Ericsson Research >> Oy L M Ericsson Ab >> >> E-mail: petri.jokela@ericsson.com >> Mobile: +358 44 299 2413 >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From nobody Tue Feb 16 06:01:57 2016 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 B35741B30DF for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:01:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 xmdYf1hGNDwZ for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:01:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C48E1A86E0 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:01:52 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-c6-56c32bce158e Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.60]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A8.EF.28465.ECB23C65; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:01:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from m46.nomadiclab.com (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:01:50 +0100 To: Miika Komu , References: <56AB5BCD.7060803@ericsson.com> <56BE47BE.9070406@ericsson.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ari_Ker=c3=a4nen?= Message-ID: <56C32BCC.9070105@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:01:48 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56BE47BE.9070406@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7je457cNhBnvmmFpMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGecWrmMq+Mla8WvvVeYGxpssXYwcHBICJhJrDjp0MXICmWIS F+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjMKHF67Q8oZx2jxPuGBlaQKmEBe4mT+26xg9giAtYSHy4vZwKxhQS8JW4e nsgIYjMLqEks+7ETLM4mYCvxu30PmM0roC2xtPk5M4jNIqAqMfXxXrC4qECaxP7Zv6FqBCVO znzCAmJzCuhI/Pp4mB3kUGagvQ+2lkGMl5fY/nYOM8RaVYmr/14xTmAUnIWkexZCxywkHQsY mVcxihanFhfnphsZ66UWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBIblwS2/dXcwrn7teIhRgINRiYe3IOJQmBBr YllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3n+vgEK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR51zivDxMSSE8sSc1OTS1I LYLJMnFwSjUwZlubTszzE08xUdZfGHqoZMLmzbslVrX+t7G07ogw/jpFTTvSbbPBPvfiDSvd 9j+XYlV2+L9E7gEHn+JMCUHhrv/SF+Q9k6ftvVrTyLjA7ECHx8Lmm2vS/09cyDslYnG72Zav D/w+KQerLazy2sjjlZRtGVF/al95+qSdRqayOpOVjjcYX+hTYinOSDTUYi4qTgQApeaqSUcC AAA= Archived-At: Cc: Jan Melen Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 16 Feb 2016 14:01:54 -0000 On 12/02/16 22:59, Miika Komu wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/29/2016 02:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end >> on February 12th: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ >> >> Please, send your comments to this list. > > in general, the draft should have a short intro to the NAT traversal > procedure and re-introduce some terms even though it all is specified in > RFC5770. This would make the draft a bit easier to read. I have also > some other nits which I'll send a bit later. Thanks for the review Miika! Also Petri commented along the same lines. We'll add some intro text to the draft to address this. Cheers, Ari From nobody Tue Feb 16 06:22:55 2016 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 902AF1A871A for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:22:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 K8esa9eS-qyG for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEE541A6F3B for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:22:50 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-5e-56c330b8f21a Received: from ESESSHC019.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.75]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C4.74.28465.8B033C65; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:22:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from m46.nomadiclab.com (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:22:48 +0100 To: Gonzalo Camarillo , Tom Henderson , HIP References: <56BF0BEA.4050709@ericsson.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ari_Ker=c3=a4nen?= Message-ID: <56C330B8.8070706@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:22:48 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56BF0BEA.4050709@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7t+4Og8NhBt1HLS2mLprMbDHz/EE2 ByaPJUt+Mnm0XI8JYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyvjfIVpwh79iz/ojrA2MJ3m6GDk4JARMJF4+ 0Opi5AQyxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcJhRoudBLzOEs45RYkv7ZkaQKmEBe4mT+26xgzSLCFRKbD7H ChIWEsiWOPvnFRtImFkgRmJmIzdImE3AVuJ3+x4mEJtXQFvizZ6LYFNYBFQlVj2bxAJiiwqk Seyf/RuqRlDi5MwnYHFOAR2JxQ2P2CFG2ks82FoGEmYWkJfY/nYOM8RWVYmr/14xTmAUnIWk exZCxywkHQsYmVcxihanFhfnphsZ66UWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBIbowS2/dXcwrn7teIhRgINR iYe3IOJQmBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3n+vgEK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR51zivDxMS SE8sSc1OTS1ILYLJMnFwSjUwmjPsi7+/enOa4r7JakW/ubep/fq+9K62PePRNWU5xkzPjSVe zqkIvfW1xPhNaRg3o+5ysxVTHitPVf7QcS8675WAwMmEtzG7Dyw4uP/tl4A94Zvql8T4/o6t ef8y8uTH2K+F6bsupkuef7Buc1NTyqrue+WyG9N7+G79+Hi44/xGhbn97nqsaUosxRmJhlrM RcWJABsYjHlNAgAA Archived-At: Cc: Jan Melen Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 16 Feb 2016 14:22:52 -0000 Thank you for the review Tom! Please see below. > On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >> Gonzalo and all, >> >> My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago >> that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native >> NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version. >> >> I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains >> normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in >> RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference >> in Section 8.1. It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a >> specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it >> stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need >> to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still >> applicable from RFC5770. For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION >> mode still valid? Indeed this variant is the standards-track solution, but I think it makes sense to not obsolete the RFC5770. For example, in some scenario the STUN based solution could be better than native HIP based. And also the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should be still valid. >> ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me >> that it should also be informative in this draft. The details of e.g., how ICE checklists are used are defined in RFC5245 so I think it needs to be normative. >> I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the >> Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 >> with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to >> avoid referencing 5770 from then on. Avoiding RFC 5770 altogether would require lots of editorial work with this draft for a questionable amount of benefit, so I think it's better if we simply have it as normative reference. The maturity level of 5770 (experimental) is an issue, but I think it is possible - and makes sense - to make an exception here. Cheers, Ari From nobody Mon Feb 22 07:30:45 2016 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 8178A1B36CD for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 07:30:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 WI0BuyRCkVV2 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 07:30:42 -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 4B5611B36C5 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 07:30:41 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79a76d000000a93-6a-56cb299f795e Received: from ESESSHC022.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.84]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E0.4A.02707.F992BC65; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:30:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from [153.88.190.38] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:30:38 +0100 To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ari_Ker=c3=a4nen?= , References: <56AB5BCD.7060803@ericsson.com> <56BE47BE.9070406@ericsson.com> <56C32BCC.9070105@ericsson.com> From: Miika Komu Organization: Ericsson AB Message-ID: <56CB299E.5030704@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:30:38 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C32BCC.9070105@ericsson.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060802000806050904010600" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7iO58zdNhBq9OKlhMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGTPvHGAq6CqtON9zl6mBsSWli5GTQ0LAROLgyYfsELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAQOM0pMbetjgnBWM0pce9jCDFIlLGAvcXLfLaAODg4RAT+Jv0clQcJCArkStz4u ZgGxmQXUJJb92MkEYrMJaEmsunMdrJVfQFJiQ8NuMJtXQFuiYeF7VhCbRUBVomXiDbB6UYEI icOdXewQNYISJ2c+AZvJKaAj8eLWcmaQe5gFuhkl/u7tYga5QUhAReLiseAJjIKzkLTMQlY2 C+wmW4k7c3dD2doSyxa+hrKtJWb8OsgGYStKTOl+yA5hm0q8PvqREcI2lli27i/bAkaOVYyi xanFSbnpRkZ6qUWZycXF+Xl6eaklmxiBUXFwy2+DHYwvnzseYhTgYFTi4TXgPBUmxJpYVlyZ e4hRBWjOow2rLzBKseTl56UqifDWSZ0OE+JNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM672nl9mJBA emJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNTqoGxLPT1+9sysSIdskuv9ppXluzz+Jo87ff/99MNMqYpOTFb2LhN SDn+7PMbRVvxtcrfrnvILjUQ2N8yVf96zK3au/5n5I49nvrnQmdheOf0g+YnVB5KMl4841Xd 06WR6N0a01V8PfPT6x9WS1budt/ttEqAkeuspPWkTduvxGRx3Z/A6hSz5464EktxRqKhFnNR cSIAUBide5ICAAA= Archived-At: Cc: Jan Melen Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 22 Feb 2016 15:30:44 -0000 --------------ms060802000806050904010600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ari, below is more detailed list of the nits and also some technical comments = about the protocol. On 02/16/2016 04:01 PM, Ari Ker=E4nen wrote: > On 12/02/16 22:59, Miika Komu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 01/29/2016 02:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will e= nd >>> on February 12th: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/= >>> >>> Please, send your comments to this list. >> >> in general, the draft should have a short intro to the NAT traversal >> procedure and re-introduce some terms even though it all is specified = in >> RFC5770. This would make the draft a bit easier to read. I have also >> some other nits which I'll send a bit later. > > Thanks for the review Miika! Also Petri commented along the same lines.= > We'll add some intro text to the draft to address this. > 2. Terminology I would repeat some of the terms used in RFC5770. Particularly these=20 would be useful: * relayed address * server reflexive candidate * relayed candidate * mapped address They are used the text and it would be nice to make the draft a bit more = self-explanatory. I would also suggest to explain the ICE term "permission" here. > 3. Protocol Description I would suggest to add a small intro here of the entire process=20 (registration, discovery of relay, base exchange, hole punching, ESP). A = picture similar to figure 1 in RFC5770 would be nice. > 3.1. Relay Registration > Section 3.3 at [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis]), and the relay has at -> in > 3.2. Forwarding Rules and Permissions > > Permissions are not required for the connectivity checks, but if a > relayed address is selected to be used for data, the registered host > MUST send an UPDATE message [RFC7401] with a PEER_PERMISSION > parameter (see Section 4.2) with the address of the peer and the > outbound and inbound SPI values the host is using with this peer. PEER_PERMISSION is not a part of RFC5770, why is it introduced here? The description is missing also the destination where this message is to = be sent (it is the relay). > 3.3. Relaying UDP Encapsulated Data and Control Packets > When a host wants to send a HIP control packet (such as a > connectivity check packet) to a peer via the data relay, it MUST add * wants -> intends (machines don't have a will, at least yet :) * it -> ambiguous, should be "the host" * via the *peer's* data relay, right? I mean both hosts may have their=20 own data relays. > send it to the data relay's address. The data relay MUST send the address of the data relay of the peer (right?) > When a host wants to send a UDP encapsulated ESP packet to a peer via > the data relay, it MUST have an active permission at the data relay > for the peer with the outbound SPI value it is using. *peer* data relay > The host MUST send the UDP encapsulated ESP packet to the data=20 relay's address. What host? Whose data relay? * wants -> intends * peer's data relay (right? please correct twice) The third ("If the data relay..."), fourth (When a host) and fifth=20 ("When the data relay...") paragraphs appear a bit of=20 redundant/overlapping, perhaps it is better to merge them together. Please state the owner of the data relay (i.e. registered host) in all=20 cases. The data relay only relays data traffic to one way (to the=20 registered host), right? > 3.4. Candidate Gathering > Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed like specified in like -> as > 3.7. Connectivity Check Pacing Negotiation > the check pacing negotiation -> the connectivity check pacing negotiat= ion > 3.8. Connectivity Checks > [RFC5770] but instead of STUN packets, the connectivity checks are =2E.., but instead of STUN packets,,, > checklist and start check transactions every Ta milliseconds as long =2E.start *to* check.. > The UPDATE packets that acknowledge a > connectivity check requests MUST be sent from the same address that > received the check and to the same address where the check was > received from. it would be easier to read this in singular form rather than plural: An/Any UPDATE packet that acknowledges a connectivity check request MUST = originate from the same address that was used to receive the check and destined to the same address where the = check was received from. (please note that I changed the wording a bit) > The acknowledgment UPDATE packets MUST contain a MAPPED_ADDRESS > parameter with the port, protocol, and IP address of the address > where the connectivity check request was received from. same here: An/Any acknowledgment UPDATE packet MUST... > If the controlling host > does not have any data to send, it SHOULD send an ICMP echo request ICMPv6 inside the tunnel - right? > using the nominated pair to signal to the controlled host that it can =2E.. in order to signal ... > stop checks and start using the nominated pair. When the controlled > host receives the first ESP packet, it MUST select that pair for use > and send back an ESP packet to acknowledge a working candidate pair. > If the controlled host does not have any data to send, it SHOULD send > an ICMP echo request. ICMPv6 inside the tunnel? > If the connectivity checks failed the hosts SHOULD notify each other > about the failure with a CONNECTIVITY_CHECKS_FAILED Notify Message > Type [RFC5770]. =2E.. failed, the hosts SHOULD ... It would also worthwhile to explain how the connectivity end in the case = of success, maybe through an example. > 3.9. NAT Keepalives > To keep the NAT bindings towards the HIP relay server and the HIP > data relay alive, if a registered host has not sent any data or > control messages to the relay for 15 seconds, it MUST send a HIP > NOTIFY packet to the relay. When a registered host has not sent any data or control messages to the=20 relay for 15 seconds, it MUST send a HIP NOTIFY packet to the relay in order to keep the NAT=20 bindings towards the HIP relay server and the HIP data relay alive. > Likewise, if the host has not sent any > data to a host it has security association and has run connectivity =2E.. to a *peer* host ... =2E.. and with which it has run ... > checks with, it MUST send either a HIP NOTIFY packet or an ICMP echo > request using the same locators as the security association is using. ICMPv6 inside the tunnel, right? =2E.. security association is based on. > 3.10. Handling Conflicting SPI Values > Since the HIP data relay determines from the SPI value to which peer > an ESP packet should be forwarded, the outbound SPI values need to be > unique for each relayed address registration. Thus, if a registered > host detects that a peer would use an SPI value that is already used > with another peer via the relay, it MUST NOT select the relayed > address for use. This is a bit confusing, do you mean inbound SPI values? Or from which=20 viewpoint is this written? > However, a host with many peers MAY decrease the odds of a conflict > by registering more than one relayed address using different local > addresses. local addresses? Do you mean in the case the host is multihomed? Or just = by using different SPI values? > 4.1. RELAYED_ADDRESS and MAPPED_ADDRESS Parameters > This document specifies only use of UDP relaying and... =2E.. the use of ... > 4.2. PEER_PERMISSION Parameter > The parameter is used for setting up and refreshing forwarding rules > and permissions at the data relay for data packets. =2E.. and the permission for data packets at the data relay. > OSPI the outbound SPI value the registered host is using for > the peer with the Address and Port > ISPI the inbound SPI value the registered host is using for > the peer with the Address and Port What happens if both of the end-host have their own data relays? Then I=20 think the OSPI could be zero. Why do you need to open both directions explicitly? I think the=20 registered host should be allowed to send through the relay after=20 successfuly data relay registration. So just opening the inbound=20 direction should be sufficient and OSPI could be removed? > 4.3. HIP Connectivity Check Packets Why is the priority included separately in a new parameter since it was=20 already exhanged in the locator? > 5. Security Considerations I didn't find the described issue from RFC5770, but I would add that=20 you're talking about non-HIP aware firewalls. Also, the relay listens at = a fixed port for registered clients, but it can decide about the port=20 facing the peer host. --------------ms060802000806050904010600 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC DKMwggXlMIIDzaADAgECAhAJdtiEOz4F3oNPssxObH7GMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMDoxETAP BgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMSUwIwYDVQQDDBxFcmljc3NvbiBOTCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBIHYy MB4XDTE0MTIxNTEyNDQwMVoXDTE3MTIxNTEyNDQwMFowYjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24x EzARBgNVBAMMCk1paWthIEtvbXUxJjAkBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWF21paWthLmtvbXVAZXJpY3Nz b24uY29tMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlbWlpa29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKC AQEAsf2pgwYbVXxhx+wwvwrS5q56tLoEhnBUsb3JG3KHYATjfQryyJsDfn90YHMl49fXFORD tFO1PPA+QB22yusgCLhjgawckYn3XBzipClxTq1UHxNq01i/RzBotdrVWYMyP4KmsBzsg/vp 0Bu5KjltP6VBGpcOi8juVeXL10uNh4XpnBbaEq2uViZJOH9+mSr0IEgh4y/lEZKnlIGpcy3v lYL4S4Vhm8Ix9X8INveWuTMdo2od1j9fdEJgtv3cg5KN2+h+pI3oN8n5ikv1xs5kaDCYFunL UnMDglkcAT8k1ebqLV0jQUNSlvDCB2hrOzVFPyEycb0ZNbX1AkOTVnlrNwIDAQABo4IBvTCC AbkwSAYDVR0fBEEwPzA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybC50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vZXJpY3Nz b25ubGluZGl2aWR1YWxjYXYyLmNybDCBggYIKwYBBQUHAQEEdjB0MCgGCCsGAQUFBzABhhxo dHRwOi8vb2NzcDIudHJ1c3QudGVsaWEuY29tMEgGCCsGAQUFBzAChjxodHRwOi8vY2EudHJ1 c3QudGVsaWFzb25lcmEuY29tL2VyaWNzc29ubmxpbmRpdmlkdWFsY2F2Mi5jZXIwIgYDVR0R BBswGYEXbWlpa2Eua29tdUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wVQYDVR0gBE4wTDBKBgwrBgEEAYIPAgMB ARIwOjA4BggrBgEFBQcCARYsaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhc29uZXJh LmNvbS9DUFMwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQTnHDg 6XexOtdZ/qMkn3QHKZCVZDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSxDcrURrevhgLDL28Gyg52cX9LNzAOBgNV HQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBALSVMD6C/sZZz43wJ2r/Hp8BtBigpKc6 CuX60vmkzQ8vGrxeNbPJmkC56FSeGtFo85DtF56xyBd704T18jr1tHTXra8cNP37qABYzgaL aLuGjtqcOnGQY//0ZQfLJBfKJnlJHX9ZB+QFPbhwpOFm9QM2oRYFse0Gjc8LV3WJ0jMUMvZD FyYoZeQ+sak+mObsTRfkR2vsuuB4Elo4MSudCmZqqFUU7gBmp36G2ySJLt/tJlJDld+egJJP 1gXnGkwW2n33Gkcy+SVLj0CSTyy76GibPp72AiuR/wz+GIaCgQ3APVbWXkB3ld4avno+Mq2u 6+2qYphYsmYwIs5SUsh6Zn1OQWNKUtbZbs2z4ALQbA3rHmndI8eLf4z7ZqML6UBzrQjukWi0 6D8yV7OXLz/TzBrp1sdPpNpDVSEWmuC0dJ3Ro8UJOLiO91KtLKwTYOPVlg+u62A5vYN6DVyT nBksz5CpUiVN7x3DDAcjarORQnteoIwBaOeZd/JZJbr900UEOmt9aLXnh8vFZOOx7db0Xccb WO473yOnt/Kr9XX5t2kvFQnNSEI3RkFqM06z+r5WiZd+BhGJPSU80QNOJzzoEXT69DihhWhF pSirFDV6CdUSxKoFD/8qIkB2QXuQUESN0WUBuGy2HOuIqnx+BIR5fGFsaiFEY5pXLHeSvByA b3yTMIIGtjCCBJ6gAwIBAgIRAKAMy8ybmZjs4jpw9HzBwFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwNzEU MBIGA1UECgwLVGVsaWFTb25lcmExHzAdBgNVBAMMFlRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEw HhcNMTQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWhcNMjQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEl MCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MjCCAiIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggIPADCCAgoCggIBANq6U+tfSJZTn4k46qN13HgaeXXsMmGSWShc6A5IEyFboXMZW3lF Hso+/6uO3ZilvB2ipZJhrhU+RL/va+5Chay/PZq9ZZeE9N03OsHfOzlwk7uwojJ34tHLiX/y QoriI+b5DXxfIYXTFO5zlZLdaIxJwlLEQp0g4/zF6EGtodlpusaH07FAcLiIEeTMPRgXcn+8 GoFOvtuVHNh/WHePlrupUgcI9/P54ITXvmZF6xcNBEjsu8yJm1VqqK0GXSgAmInJ4Ga8S6ME 2wgSBRDolxAUbmfLQRrMvLC/tyXBvuLO8uChdzpIWt3QPtMYm2R2V1Um0zANhenIUwYCKNPq 5/yHaS48jCsOBAU0TIhBnirnZmlEbC6ALqwzGAcQMaMD8LFf1oLlWLUQxEmI4YXqBXdP5XnI cMdIEF5BtUBebzBJMMF9dDB2uj8BeoRPSYbpGl7irYUYFpq4TyocQ7qpHdYASC+NV8VTaTrF nHWqa/CGRdp3GHpkgxfOBvpamOK8udHQYQo2uA3YNd2+j7p4C3jkGG+Z6RrZOskPEwtaIHLx BiA141dhCy5EScOyNajrAXQupsDnvr2ib2ef+4nObPFvedPWIe57lyj0n3e1rTqTGIBIe9wj NnAA6MqeaTS9HchPtBvOrah/cTWzXzGjwMz0P3UJqTQ2r5EAu12/W5kpAgMBAAGjggG4MIIB tDCBigYIKwYBBQUHAQEEfjB8MC0GCCsGAQUFBzABhiFodHRwOi8vb2NzcC50cnVzdC50ZWxp YXNvbmVyYS5jb20wSwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGP2h0dHA6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlh c29uZXJhLmNvbS90ZWxpYXNvbmVyYXJvb3RjYXYxLmNlcjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEA MFUGA1UdIAROMEwwSgYMKwYBBAGCDwIDAQECMDowOAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWLGh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vQ1BTMEsGA1UdHwREMEIwQKA+oDyGOmh0 dHA6Ly9jcmwtMy50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vdGVsaWFzb25lcmFyb290Y2F2MS5j cmwwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNV HQ4EFgQUsQ3K1Ea3r4YCwy9vBsoOdnF/SzcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU8I9ZOACz9Y+algzV6/p7 qhfoExIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAG4HIGyvrHc9kEKyYZtxJn9cv7S2dUxuUiegmAvU GHc+JGJyB2jyX7py9an8CsHAxg3BI3Ku9j0h7DJpXyfrlzmg36XYkNS7Ot0A1UqdjGFrtnII SI+Zj3ywHZudmDF8ktdBihHAjuk47B/Kg/Z8JhUJ37GGx/KxiIiXg5HMTdOl6mlDbJaTIEGa gdRcmH3u57r5snZ+qdVSg5UxWdhgS2+zPru/vDbPd+91zLTj9GejKXFJ6fEAOLW1j2IjJ0cy DI67d1/OzFTwCK8wYbhopK2wJ9QTKDQuWRuGoyt2d6yzd7WoAS55JE0BIt+kXDJGbOaK42H2 ifO6ERHbJiEr/oh4KzgdAes+GRjwlSaG2Z0va4Ss5lY6zfwVCEZYdZcjSDpKB0M5tTQYQeO7 QyQPOI6Gb4FXA9ko3sHvAPs4+Pq+UtWjp3y8sYr1vLCER9ePEsgLdCG27mUk9OAijkG6n5oE GOIn+70F+qvKpmm52dZ8b7DELfbuuk0CrY4p0WxH3bBt6FJkPeZJIB6YNXAYHZi7RcdBjLJh +lawbIYTJFIcoWFHAl0g0/NYsjz3DLhZz4+CrJ6SQSYmp7qDhdJAWPiaq3C+qE/h2DZAJwoz 9uHrZHB8zsZ5JL8sUZ7zgqYmNMN+9PxzasrycTJn96Y63AIZdDq1kIHIw0vF4PBTVMZtMYID FDCCAxACAQEwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFAKCCAZcw GAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTYwMjIyMTUzMDM4 WjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgDHgiGVgpmRXdhbw4LetOCX5HxkdUEW5DcZFE+O9geC8wXQYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMVAwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjBfBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFQ oE4wOjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJTAjBgNVBAMMHEVyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgQ0EgdjICEAl22IQ7PgXeg0+yzE5sfsYwbAYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMV8wXTALBglghkgBZQME ASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0D AgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBS9ZOhuGBi ZaEg1XMhi8vcYXedxcqFeynuLLtycT7tgtg+pF51b1kRa07dox74weIf+rcopBtwGAhWCEpR bqLbYKKFayRW8VUzln368Ytd+RZ0wcwMNnUbcpgc3Y6jp+azqVPIuUMubHkFOciaWGNytY+y wGeMY0FqXWPaDxUCyLbeDpCYbXRkDjHBBQLuEZJ7vow9XfvIsS3J5VHLMZVocgLN55RaoYtm etjxHwox6dURktEVt47lmxi0JKzuxSdw6uh1O/75tNBJiLDsPQewcAeSvkuLjs2w78Fo9YvD kJUmOoJnt4TOYj4wX4dtHdlGc+XoEUC8gA92r+HIKqo9AAAAAAAA --------------ms060802000806050904010600-- From nobody Mon Feb 22 07:41:19 2016 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 C13E31B36ED for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 07:41:18 -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] 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 7jBhy3W3-DV1 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 07:41:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8120A1B3158 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 07:41:16 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79ce6d000005138-cc-56cb2c1a57d4 Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.69]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 35.FB.20792.A1C2BC65; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:41:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [153.88.190.38] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:41:13 +0100 To: References: <56BF0BEA.4050709@ericsson.com> <56C330B8.8070706@ericsson.com> From: Miika Komu Organization: Ericsson AB Message-ID: <56CB2C19.7060000@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:41:13 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C330B8.8070706@ericsson.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms070102040108010602060003" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7q66UzukwgwMTjC2mLprM7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujHnr9zEXbHWueHBuHWsD4y/bLkZODgkBE4lfazYxQdhiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4zCjxaH0TWEJIYDWjxORnQSC2sIC9xMl9t9hBbBEBUYkpH04zQzR0M0rsnLKL FSTBJqAlserOdWYQm19AUmJDw24wm1dAW6LlXQ9YDYuAqsSUWVPA4qICERKHO7vYIWoEJU7O fMICYnMK6EisW7GfHWQBM8iCDZtvA13EAbRNReLiseAJjAKzkLTMQlYGkmAWsJW4M3c3M4St LbFs4Wso21pixq+DbBC2osSU7ofsELapxOujHxkhbGOJZev+si1g5FjFKFqcWlycm25kpJda lJlcXJyfp5eXWrKJERj+B7f8ttrBePC54yFGAQ5GJR5eA85TYUKsiWXFlbmHGFWA5jzasPoC oxRLXn5eqpIIb53U6TAh3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivGuc14cJCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbB ZJk4OKUaGA0zPoYJpG67NVmbySRO19XFzLpxzjo+49/JnrUzeNdVuLXcsjIPsLltXGPHenq3 Tq94pPOyc6xaT0+Urkmqe1t29sWCTQrFCWIfitNnTGd6m773xb7rE3VnmLPsWiFSb7k/c2L5 jtOWmu8PGb10lvzieqPW5e95kbWPupN+TPu351XPksyfKUosxRmJhlrMRcWJANUI6zqHAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 22 Feb 2016 15:41:18 -0000 --------------ms070102040108010602060003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 02/16/2016 04:22 PM, Ari Ker=E4nen wrote: > Thank you for the review Tom! Please see below. > >> On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >>> Gonzalo and all, >>> >>> My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago >>> that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native >>> NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version. >>> >>> I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains >>> normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in >>> RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference >>> in Section 8.1. It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a >>> specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it >>> stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need >>> to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still >>> applicable from RFC5770. For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION >>> mode still valid? > > Indeed this variant is the standards-track solution, but I think it > makes sense to not obsolete the RFC5770. For example, in some scenario > the STUN based solution could be better than native HIP based. And also= > the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should be still valid. I think the main benefit of the STUN-based solution is the available=20 infrastructure. From a protocol engineering perspective, RFC5770 is more = complex to implement. >>> ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me >>> that it should also be informative in this draft. > > The details of e.g., how ICE checklists are used are defined in RFC5245= > so I think it needs to be normative. > >>> I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the >>> Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 >>> with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to >>> avoid referencing 5770 from then on. > > Avoiding RFC 5770 altogether would require lots of editorial work with > this draft for a questionable amount of benefit, so I think it's better= > if we simply have it as normative reference. The maturity level of 5770= > (experimental) is an issue, but I think it is possible - and makes sens= e > - to make an exception here. If it is not a problem from the viewpoint of IETF process, I would=20 suggest to keep the native NAT traversal mode as a delta to RFC5770 but=20 add more introductory text. Reworking the draft as a replacement for=20 RFC5770 would require quite much extra effort. Tom are you volunteering? --------------ms070102040108010602060003 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC DKMwggXlMIIDzaADAgECAhAJdtiEOz4F3oNPssxObH7GMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMDoxETAP BgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMSUwIwYDVQQDDBxFcmljc3NvbiBOTCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBIHYy MB4XDTE0MTIxNTEyNDQwMVoXDTE3MTIxNTEyNDQwMFowYjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24x EzARBgNVBAMMCk1paWthIEtvbXUxJjAkBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWF21paWthLmtvbXVAZXJpY3Nz b24uY29tMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlbWlpa29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKC AQEAsf2pgwYbVXxhx+wwvwrS5q56tLoEhnBUsb3JG3KHYATjfQryyJsDfn90YHMl49fXFORD tFO1PPA+QB22yusgCLhjgawckYn3XBzipClxTq1UHxNq01i/RzBotdrVWYMyP4KmsBzsg/vp 0Bu5KjltP6VBGpcOi8juVeXL10uNh4XpnBbaEq2uViZJOH9+mSr0IEgh4y/lEZKnlIGpcy3v lYL4S4Vhm8Ix9X8INveWuTMdo2od1j9fdEJgtv3cg5KN2+h+pI3oN8n5ikv1xs5kaDCYFunL UnMDglkcAT8k1ebqLV0jQUNSlvDCB2hrOzVFPyEycb0ZNbX1AkOTVnlrNwIDAQABo4IBvTCC AbkwSAYDVR0fBEEwPzA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybC50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vZXJpY3Nz b25ubGluZGl2aWR1YWxjYXYyLmNybDCBggYIKwYBBQUHAQEEdjB0MCgGCCsGAQUFBzABhhxo dHRwOi8vb2NzcDIudHJ1c3QudGVsaWEuY29tMEgGCCsGAQUFBzAChjxodHRwOi8vY2EudHJ1 c3QudGVsaWFzb25lcmEuY29tL2VyaWNzc29ubmxpbmRpdmlkdWFsY2F2Mi5jZXIwIgYDVR0R BBswGYEXbWlpa2Eua29tdUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wVQYDVR0gBE4wTDBKBgwrBgEEAYIPAgMB ARIwOjA4BggrBgEFBQcCARYsaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhc29uZXJh LmNvbS9DUFMwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQTnHDg 6XexOtdZ/qMkn3QHKZCVZDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSxDcrURrevhgLDL28Gyg52cX9LNzAOBgNV HQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBALSVMD6C/sZZz43wJ2r/Hp8BtBigpKc6 CuX60vmkzQ8vGrxeNbPJmkC56FSeGtFo85DtF56xyBd704T18jr1tHTXra8cNP37qABYzgaL aLuGjtqcOnGQY//0ZQfLJBfKJnlJHX9ZB+QFPbhwpOFm9QM2oRYFse0Gjc8LV3WJ0jMUMvZD FyYoZeQ+sak+mObsTRfkR2vsuuB4Elo4MSudCmZqqFUU7gBmp36G2ySJLt/tJlJDld+egJJP 1gXnGkwW2n33Gkcy+SVLj0CSTyy76GibPp72AiuR/wz+GIaCgQ3APVbWXkB3ld4avno+Mq2u 6+2qYphYsmYwIs5SUsh6Zn1OQWNKUtbZbs2z4ALQbA3rHmndI8eLf4z7ZqML6UBzrQjukWi0 6D8yV7OXLz/TzBrp1sdPpNpDVSEWmuC0dJ3Ro8UJOLiO91KtLKwTYOPVlg+u62A5vYN6DVyT nBksz5CpUiVN7x3DDAcjarORQnteoIwBaOeZd/JZJbr900UEOmt9aLXnh8vFZOOx7db0Xccb WO473yOnt/Kr9XX5t2kvFQnNSEI3RkFqM06z+r5WiZd+BhGJPSU80QNOJzzoEXT69DihhWhF pSirFDV6CdUSxKoFD/8qIkB2QXuQUESN0WUBuGy2HOuIqnx+BIR5fGFsaiFEY5pXLHeSvByA b3yTMIIGtjCCBJ6gAwIBAgIRAKAMy8ybmZjs4jpw9HzBwFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwNzEU MBIGA1UECgwLVGVsaWFTb25lcmExHzAdBgNVBAMMFlRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEw HhcNMTQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWhcNMjQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEl MCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MjCCAiIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggIPADCCAgoCggIBANq6U+tfSJZTn4k46qN13HgaeXXsMmGSWShc6A5IEyFboXMZW3lF Hso+/6uO3ZilvB2ipZJhrhU+RL/va+5Chay/PZq9ZZeE9N03OsHfOzlwk7uwojJ34tHLiX/y QoriI+b5DXxfIYXTFO5zlZLdaIxJwlLEQp0g4/zF6EGtodlpusaH07FAcLiIEeTMPRgXcn+8 GoFOvtuVHNh/WHePlrupUgcI9/P54ITXvmZF6xcNBEjsu8yJm1VqqK0GXSgAmInJ4Ga8S6ME 2wgSBRDolxAUbmfLQRrMvLC/tyXBvuLO8uChdzpIWt3QPtMYm2R2V1Um0zANhenIUwYCKNPq 5/yHaS48jCsOBAU0TIhBnirnZmlEbC6ALqwzGAcQMaMD8LFf1oLlWLUQxEmI4YXqBXdP5XnI cMdIEF5BtUBebzBJMMF9dDB2uj8BeoRPSYbpGl7irYUYFpq4TyocQ7qpHdYASC+NV8VTaTrF nHWqa/CGRdp3GHpkgxfOBvpamOK8udHQYQo2uA3YNd2+j7p4C3jkGG+Z6RrZOskPEwtaIHLx BiA141dhCy5EScOyNajrAXQupsDnvr2ib2ef+4nObPFvedPWIe57lyj0n3e1rTqTGIBIe9wj NnAA6MqeaTS9HchPtBvOrah/cTWzXzGjwMz0P3UJqTQ2r5EAu12/W5kpAgMBAAGjggG4MIIB tDCBigYIKwYBBQUHAQEEfjB8MC0GCCsGAQUFBzABhiFodHRwOi8vb2NzcC50cnVzdC50ZWxp YXNvbmVyYS5jb20wSwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGP2h0dHA6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlh c29uZXJhLmNvbS90ZWxpYXNvbmVyYXJvb3RjYXYxLmNlcjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEA MFUGA1UdIAROMEwwSgYMKwYBBAGCDwIDAQECMDowOAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWLGh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vQ1BTMEsGA1UdHwREMEIwQKA+oDyGOmh0 dHA6Ly9jcmwtMy50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vdGVsaWFzb25lcmFyb290Y2F2MS5j cmwwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNV HQ4EFgQUsQ3K1Ea3r4YCwy9vBsoOdnF/SzcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU8I9ZOACz9Y+algzV6/p7 qhfoExIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAG4HIGyvrHc9kEKyYZtxJn9cv7S2dUxuUiegmAvU GHc+JGJyB2jyX7py9an8CsHAxg3BI3Ku9j0h7DJpXyfrlzmg36XYkNS7Ot0A1UqdjGFrtnII SI+Zj3ywHZudmDF8ktdBihHAjuk47B/Kg/Z8JhUJ37GGx/KxiIiXg5HMTdOl6mlDbJaTIEGa gdRcmH3u57r5snZ+qdVSg5UxWdhgS2+zPru/vDbPd+91zLTj9GejKXFJ6fEAOLW1j2IjJ0cy DI67d1/OzFTwCK8wYbhopK2wJ9QTKDQuWRuGoyt2d6yzd7WoAS55JE0BIt+kXDJGbOaK42H2 ifO6ERHbJiEr/oh4KzgdAes+GRjwlSaG2Z0va4Ss5lY6zfwVCEZYdZcjSDpKB0M5tTQYQeO7 QyQPOI6Gb4FXA9ko3sHvAPs4+Pq+UtWjp3y8sYr1vLCER9ePEsgLdCG27mUk9OAijkG6n5oE GOIn+70F+qvKpmm52dZ8b7DELfbuuk0CrY4p0WxH3bBt6FJkPeZJIB6YNXAYHZi7RcdBjLJh +lawbIYTJFIcoWFHAl0g0/NYsjz3DLhZz4+CrJ6SQSYmp7qDhdJAWPiaq3C+qE/h2DZAJwoz 9uHrZHB8zsZ5JL8sUZ7zgqYmNMN+9PxzasrycTJn96Y63AIZdDq1kIHIw0vF4PBTVMZtMYID FDCCAxACAQEwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFAKCCAZcw GAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTYwMjIyMTU0MTEz WjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgeaKG759oMnelFtIurdCvZwW0M0ujmmDWFAAOMOcyGFAwXQYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMVAwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjBfBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFQ oE4wOjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJTAjBgNVBAMMHEVyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgQ0EgdjICEAl22IQ7PgXeg0+yzE5sfsYwbAYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMV8wXTALBglghkgBZQME ASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0D AgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQAbxvdDLXSm bOSmWROTfNKLbwtoNR7xn9p6DGeTm0FJQtVkTjIxzHRECLhttGxhpAwqfdva4JuxrDu5rjQl 5IHsB/umBzZbBOSwRt3SeKrp9oc5lhqJK+KOogKddRdZzQIXH62+EaeIAJxUk6Uy2kjk0OhO frlnS+00DeIWSAhmI3h6SzWORaTO8viFe2zJ9feRjSFbUW5tTpmCVk6rGNNPn7KiTHLb9qBR v2sQHy/dsz0ZQxiwt7qaZMunKt3iIIw/6uvABWJMMBy9w51cwySWK87D/YbsDi04Bgha1FqF 0cGPLDAlpk00JvVztVD3FykF4R6deo4qvPEGfsHKSq7uAAAAAAAA --------------ms070102040108010602060003-- From nobody Tue Feb 23 06:09:25 2016 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 4349B1B2E75 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:09:24 -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 1oW_KVIf97M3 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:09:19 -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 922731B2E88 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (hymn04.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.72]) by mxout25.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id u1NE8DoS010431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:08:14 -0800 Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id u1NE8BoR029459; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:08:11 -0800 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 10745@localhost) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id u1NE8B8W029450; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:08:11 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [73.239.169.224] by hymn04.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:08:11 PST Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:08:11 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Henderson To: ari.keranen@ericsson.com, jan.melen@ericsson.com Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1903409144-1508812286-1456236491=:18671" X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.2.23.140016 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, MIME_TEXT_ONLY_MP_MIXED 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODY_SIZE_3000_3999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FRAUD_COMMON 0, __FRAUD_REFNUM 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 23 Feb 2016 14:09:24 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1903409144-1508812286-1456236491=:18671 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On 02/16/2016 06:22 AM, Ari Kernen wrote: > Thank you for the review Tom! Please see below. > >> On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >>> Gonzalo and all, >>> >>> My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago >>> that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native >>> NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version. >>> >>> I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains >>> normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in >>> RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference >>> in Section 8.1. It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a >>> specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it >>> stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need >>> to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still >>> applicable from RFC5770. For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION >>> mode still valid? > > Indeed this variant is the standards-track solution, but I think it > makes sense to not obsolete the RFC5770. For example, in some scenario > the STUN based solution could be better than native HIP based. And also > the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should be still valid. > >>> ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me >>> that it should also be informative in this draft. > > The details of e.g., how ICE checklists are used are defined in RFC5245 > so I think it needs to be normative. > >>> I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the >>> Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 >>> with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to >>> avoid referencing 5770 from then on. > > Avoiding RFC 5770 altogether would require lots of editorial work with > this draft for a questionable amount of benefit, so I think it's better > if we simply have it as normative reference. The maturity level of 5770 > (experimental) is an issue, but I think it is possible - and makes sense > - to make an exception here. Ari, I have thought about this and it seems to me that there are two issues to discuss. There is a technical issue to resolve, which is whether the WG wants to keep RFC5770 solutions as non-obsolete, and how to express these options to future implementers. I had thought that the WG position was to drop support for STUN-based solutions, but you are suggesting now to keep it active, perhaps as a MAY implement? It seems to me that the basic UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should still be kept mandatory since it is the basis for the other approach and is useful by itself. Then there is the editorial issue about how to meet IETF guidelines on how things are cross-referenced and use of informative/normative references, which seems to me risky at the moment (i.e., I am anticipating a downstream reviewer expressing this same concern). Plus there is the goal of making it clearer to implementers. - Tom ---1903409144-1508812286-1456236491=:18671-- From nobody Tue Feb 23 06:28:19 2016 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 DDEC61B2F7B for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:28:17 -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 PpPIoIlN9-fH for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:28:16 -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 4E70D1B2F7A for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (hymn04.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.72]) by mxout26.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id u1NEOjln020612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:24:46 -0800 Received: from hymn04.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id u1NEOhad007624; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:24:43 -0800 Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 10745@localhost) by hymn04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id u1NEOhpb007621; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:24:43 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [73.239.169.224] by hymn04.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:24:43 PST Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:24:43 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Henderson To: miika.komu@ericsson.com Message-ID: User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1903409144-786124079-1456237483=:18671" X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.2.23.141816 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, MIME_TEXT_ONLY_MP_MIXED 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODY_SIZE_3000_3999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FRAUD_COMMON 0, __FRAUD_REFNUM 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0' Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 23 Feb 2016 14:28:18 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1903409144-786124079-1456237483=:18671 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Hi Miika, inline below. On 02/22/2016 07:41 AM, Miika Komu wrote: > Hi, > > On 02/16/2016 04:22 PM, Ari Kernen wrote: >> Thank you for the review Tom! Please see below. >> >>> On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >>>> Gonzalo and all, >>>> >>>> My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago >>>> that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native >>>> NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version. >>>> >>>> I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains >>>> normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in >>>> RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference >>>> in Section 8.1. It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a >>>> specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it >>>> stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need >>>> to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still >>>> applicable from RFC5770. For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION >>>> mode still valid? >> >> Indeed this variant is the standards-track solution, but I think it >> makes sense to not obsolete the RFC5770. For example, in some scenario >> the STUN based solution could be better than native HIP based. And also >> the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should be still valid. > > I think the main benefit of the STUN-based solution is the available > infrastructure. From a protocol engineering perspective, RFC5770 is more > complex to implement. Agree, we had this discussion many years ago and I don't think much has changed. It seems that some level of STUN server infrastructure has been deployed since then, but no one (AFAIK) has implemented RFC 5770 to make use of it. > >>>> ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me >>>> that it should also be informative in this draft. >> >> The details of e.g., how ICE checklists are used are defined in RFC5245 >> so I think it needs to be normative. >> >>>> I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the >>>> Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 >>>> with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to >>>> avoid referencing 5770 from then on. >> >> Avoiding RFC 5770 altogether would require lots of editorial work with >> this draft for a questionable amount of benefit, so I think it's better >> if we simply have it as normative reference. The maturity level of 5770 >> (experimental) is an issue, but I think it is possible - and makes sense >> - to make an exception here. > > If it is not a problem from the viewpoint of IETF process, I would > suggest to keep the native NAT traversal mode as a delta to RFC5770 but > add more introductory text. Reworking the draft as a replacement for > RFC5770 would require quite much extra effort. Tom are you volunteering? > As I mentioned in the other post, I question whether we can get away from this extra effort, but I'd like to set aside the editorial work issue for the moment to try to decide about what the technical status should be about the 5770 STUN solution. - Tom ---1903409144-786124079-1456237483=:18671-- From nobody Wed Feb 24 06:26:49 2016 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 557D81B3058 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 06:26:46 -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 pF9XMyshX49o for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 06:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 008631B302E for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 06:26:43 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79ce6d000005138-a8-56cdbda20f65 Received: from ESESSHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.21]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EA.D6.20792.2ADBDC65; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:26:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.74] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:26:41 +0100 To: Tom Henderson , , References: From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56CDBDA1.7050207@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:26:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7qO6ivWfDDI5eF7SYumgys8XM8wfZ HJg8liz5yeTRcj0mgCmKyyYlNSezLLVI3y6BK2Pe8uWMBZ3SFYu3fmZsYLwi2sXIySEhYCIx Z38jE4QtJnHh3nq2LkYuDiGBw4wS83b9gXJWM0r0dZ9jB6kSFrCXOLnvFpgtIpAi0Xl9KVi3 kICnxJ9Jn4EaODiYBUQlts+qAgmzCVhIbLl1nwXE5hXQluh9dYoNxGYRUJW4vmQSM4gtKhAj cbHzCBNEjaDEyZlPwOo5BbwkLmw/ARZnFtCXWN1wgA3Clpdo3jqbGWKttsTyZy0sExgFZyFp n4WkZRaSlgWMzKsYRYtTi4tz042M9FKLMpOLi/Pz9PJSSzYxAoP14JbfVjsYDz53PMQowMGo xMNb8ORMmBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3rhpZ8OEeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ865xXh8m JJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYFzbrRgg2Kzqvm/aIz+HdxsKQ/5/kvC+MetzxnY+1qP5mWvu 7Nhr+NvryY9w02N8NxQ7F+3OfVm/7pR9dL9dzPH6u3ocD5xmBH9ibvz+/VCUtPgJ6QvGE/95 /LS+pxGeMl89ZNfKXO31q/f1VL9z2nz//nz23VzekY7XF5u8PPVN7lX977VJ9heVWIozEg21 mIuKEwEY/zNoUgIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 24 Feb 2016 14:26:46 -0000 Hi Tom, I agree it is better to separate both questions: the right thing to do from a technical point of view and how to document it. Let's focus on doing the right thing, regardless of what each of you think the group agreed to do years ago. What are the pros and cons of obsoleting the old STUN-based approach? Thanks, Gonzalo On 23/02/2016 4:08 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: > > > On 02/16/2016 06:22 AM, Ari Kernen wrote: >> Thank you for the review Tom! Please see below. >> >>> On 12/02/2016 11:54 PM, Tom Henderson wrote: >>>> Gonzalo and all, >>>> >>>> My understanding is that the WG reached consensus several years ago >>>> that the standards-track NAT traversal variant would be the native >>>> NAT traversal and not the RFC5770-based ICE/STUN/TURN version. >>>> >>>> I reviewed the above draft and noticed that it still contains >>>> normative references to RFC5770 (pointers to material found only in >>>> RFC5770) throughout, and contains RFC5770 as a normative reference >>>> in Section 8.1. It seems to me that the WG ought to produce a >>>> specification that can stand alone from RFC5770, because as it >>>> stands now, it seems to me that someone implementing it would need >>>> to consult both drafts and may be uncertain about what is still >>>> applicable from RFC5770. For example, is the UDP-ENCAPSULATION >>>> mode still valid? >> >> Indeed this variant is the standards-track solution, but I think it >> makes sense to not obsolete the RFC5770. For example, in some scenario >> the STUN based solution could be better than native HIP based. And also >> the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should be still valid. >> >>>> ICE (RFC 5245) is also still listed as normative but it seems to me >>>> that it should also be informative in this draft. >> >> The details of e.g., how ICE checklists are used are defined in RFC5245 >> so I think it needs to be normative. >> >>>> I think it would be appropriate to just reference 5770 in the >>>> Introduction, stating that this specification replaces RFC 5770 >>>> with a different mechanism than ICE/STUN/TURN, and then try to >>>> avoid referencing 5770 from then on. >> >> Avoiding RFC 5770 altogether would require lots of editorial work with >> this draft for a questionable amount of benefit, so I think it's better >> if we simply have it as normative reference. The maturity level of 5770 >> (experimental) is an issue, but I think it is possible - and makes sense >> - to make an exception here. > > Ari, I have thought about this and it seems to me that there are two issues to discuss. > > There is a technical issue to resolve, which is whether the WG wants to keep RFC5770 solutions as non-obsolete, and how to express these options to future implementers. I had thought that the WG position was to drop support for STUN-based solutions, but you are suggesting now to keep it active, perhaps as a MAY implement? It seems to me that the basic UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode should still be kept mandatory since it is the basis for the other approach and is useful by itself. > > Then there is the editorial issue about how to meet IETF guidelines on how things are cross-referenced and use of informative/normative references, which seems to me risky at the moment (i.e., I am anticipating a downstream reviewer expressing this same concern). Plus there is the goal of making it clearer to implementers. > > - Tom > From nobody Fri Feb 26 01:25:19 2016 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 74A621A0064; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:25:18 -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: 6.14.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160226092518.23119.26137.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:25:18 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07.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: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:25:18 -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 of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol Certificates Authors : Tobias Heer Samu Varjonen Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2016-02-26 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 updates 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-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07 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 samu.varjonen@cs.helsinki.fi Fri Feb 26 01:28:54 2016 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 268C61A016B for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:28:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.307 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 QIGJdVrn_vYR for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:28:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from script.cs.helsinki.fi (script.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.11.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D6961A0135 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:28:51 -0800 (PST) X-DKIM: Courier DKIM Filter v0.50+pk-2016-01-27 mail.cs.helsinki.fi Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:28:46 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.helsinki.fi; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; s=dkim20130528; bh=3AtChk0v4hFZWauFYB A3xSVZ+VuPiReZ4b5TpRgxfTI=; b=dCvVClZarOicFbO7aYOiWvCMrxekuU6scz 8zjpUyPLzplLrzlP69M/LT82mXu4+wUkSqUyW4rwGLIM60l8CMF5X1e0AAtthj5h iwJGhGJEAQRR+k2mXgePX3IVuWJRwekBIJsDC8CckJpeFStClQPF7KBc2wsi1Cp7 bnVQHrZi4= Received: from [128.214.10.115] (hpf-7.cs.helsinki.fi [128.214.10.115]) (AUTH: PLAIN sklvarjo, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by mail.cs.helsinki.fi with ESMTPSA; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:28:46 +0200 id 00000000005A0993.0000000056D01ACE.00007F2B To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <20160226092518.23119.26137.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Varjonen Samu Message-ID: <56D01ACE.50907@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:28:46 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160226092518.23119.26137.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020401030001070405030904" Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:47:53 -0800 Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07.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: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:36:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020401030001070405030904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, addressed the GenArt, OPSdir, SecDir, and IANA comments. Still waiting for one clarification to one last comment. -Samu On 26/02/16 11:25, 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 of the IETF. > > Title : Host Identity Protocol Certificates > Authors : Tobias Heer > Samu Varjonen > Filename : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2016-02-26 > > 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 updates 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-07 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07 > > > 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 --------------020401030001070405030904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all,

addressed the GenArt, OPSdir, SecDir, and IANA comments. Still waiting for one clarification to one last comment.

-Samu

On 26/02/16 11:25, 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 of the IETF.

        Title           : Host Identity Protocol Certificates
        Authors         : Tobias Heer
                          Samu Varjonen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2016-02-26

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 updates 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-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07


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

--------------020401030001070405030904-- From nobody Fri Feb 26 07:48:12 2016 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 2CDF01A9240 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:48:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Le_aymw4TJ8X for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from out.west.exch081.serverdata.net (cas081-co-2.exch081.serverdata.net [199.193.204.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6308E1A923A for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from MBX081-W5-CO-2.exch081.serverpod.net (10.224.129.85) by MBX081-W5-CO-1 (10.224.129.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:48:08 -0800 Received: from MBX081-W5-CO-2.exch081.serverpod.net ([10.224.129.85]) by MBX081-W5-CO-2.exch081.serverpod.net ([10.224.129.85]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:48:08 -0800 From: Jeff Ahrenholz To: Gonzalo Camarillo , Tom Henderson , "ari.keranen@ericsson.com" , "jan.melen@ericsson.com" Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal Thread-Index: AQHRbkOgfoNu5ryIFEuihd2cfTcswZ87yFaAgAK1TwA= Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:48:08 +0000 Message-ID: <3CEE85EA-C996-4B28-B0A3-DA8B158BD159@temperednetworks.com> References: <56CDBDA1.7050207@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <56CDBDA1.7050207@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [216.168.34.194] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "hipsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:48:12 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KV2XigJl2ZSBiZWVuIGRpc2N1c3NpbmcgdGhlIE5BVCB0cmF2ZXJzYWwgYXBwcm9h Y2hlcyBoZXJlIGF0IFRlbXBlcmVkIE5ldHdvcmtzIChTZWF0dGxlLWJhc2VkIGNvbXBhbnkgdXNp bmcgSElQIHRvIGJ1aWxkIHNlY3VyZSBvdmVybGF5cyBiZXR3ZWVuIGN1c3RvbWVyIG5ldHdvcmtz LikgV2UgbGlrZSB0aGUgbmF0aXZlIEhJUC1iYXNlZCBhcHByb2FjaCBwcm9wb3NlZCBpbiBkcmFm dC1pZXRmLWhpcC1uYXRpdmUtbmF0LXRyYXZlcnNhbC4gTW9zdGx5IGR1ZSB0byB0aGUgc2ltcGxp Y2l0eSBvZiBpbXBsZW1lbnRpbmcgdGhpcyDigJQgYnkgZXh0ZW5kaW5nIGV4aXN0aW5nIEhJUCBt ZXNzYWdlcyB2ZXJzdXMgdXNpbmcgdGhlIElDRS9TVFVOL1RVUk4gbWFjaGluZXJ5Lg0KDQpXZSBj dXJyZW50bHkgdXNlIFVEUCBlbmNhcHN1bGF0aW9uIG9mIEhJUCBhbmQgSVBzZWMsIHNvIHRvIGlt cGxlbWVudCB0aGUgbmF0aXZlIE5BVC10cmF2ZXJzYWwgZHJhZnQsIGl0IG1heSBiZSBhIG1hdHRl ciBvZiBzdXBwb3J0aW5nIHRoZSBjb250cm9sL2RhdGEgcmVsYXlpbmcgc2VydmVyLiBXZSBtYXkg aW1wbGVtZW50IHRoaXMgc29tZSB0aW1lIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUuDQoNClJlZ2FyZGluZyBwcm9z L2NvbnM6DQpIb3cgd2lkZWx5LWRlcGxveWVkIGlzIFNUVU4vVFVSTj8gQXJlIHB1YmxpYyBzZXJ2 ZXJzIHdpZGVzcHJlYWQ/DQoNCnRoYW5rcywNCkplZmYgQWhyZW5ob2x6DQpKZWZmIENvc3Rsb3cN Ck9ybGllIEJyZXdlcg0KDQoNCg0KT24gMi8yNC8xNiwgNjoyNiBBTSwgIkhpcHNlYyBvbiBiZWhh bGYgb2YgR29uemFsbyBDYW1hcmlsbG8iIDxoaXBzZWMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBvbiBiZWhh bGYgb2YgR29uemFsby5DYW1hcmlsbG9AZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPkhpIFRvbSwN Cj4NCj5JIGFncmVlIGl0IGlzIGJldHRlciB0byBzZXBhcmF0ZSBib3RoIHF1ZXN0aW9uczogdGhl IHJpZ2h0IHRoaW5nIHRvIGRvDQo+ZnJvbSBhIHRlY2huaWNhbCBwb2ludCBvZiB2aWV3IGFuZCBo b3cgdG8gZG9jdW1lbnQgaXQuDQo+DQo+TGV0J3MgZm9jdXMgb24gZG9pbmcgdGhlIHJpZ2h0IHRo aW5nLCByZWdhcmRsZXNzIG9mIHdoYXQgZWFjaCBvZiB5b3UNCj50aGluayB0aGUgZ3JvdXAgYWdy ZWVkIHRvIGRvIHllYXJzIGFnby4gV2hhdCBhcmUgdGhlIHByb3MgYW5kIGNvbnMgb2YNCj5vYnNv bGV0aW5nIHRoZSBvbGQgU1RVTi1iYXNlZCBhcHByb2FjaD8NCj4NCj5UaGFua3MsDQo+DQo+R29u emFsbw0KPg0KPk9uIDIzLzAyLzIwMTYgNDowOCBQTSwgVG9tIEhlbmRlcnNvbiB3cm90ZToNCj4+ IA0KPj4gDQo+PiBPbiAwMi8xNi8yMDE2IDA2OjIyIEFNLCBBcmkgS2Vyw6RuZW4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ Pj4gVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB0aGUgcmV2aWV3IFRvbSEgUGxlYXNlIHNlZSBiZWxvdy4NCj4+Pg0K Pj4+PiBPbiAxMi8wMi8yMDE2IDExOjU0IFBNLCBUb20gSGVuZGVyc29uIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+Pj4g R29uemFsbyBhbmQgYWxsLA0KPj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4+IE15IHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgaXMgdGhhdCB0 aGUgV0cgcmVhY2hlZCBjb25zZW5zdXMgc2V2ZXJhbCB5ZWFycyBhZ28NCj4+Pj4+IHRoYXQgdGhl IHN0YW5kYXJkcy10cmFjayBOQVQgdHJhdmVyc2FsIHZhcmlhbnQgd291bGQgYmUgdGhlIG5hdGl2 ZQ0KPj4+Pj4gTkFUIHRyYXZlcnNhbCBhbmQgbm90IHRoZSBSRkM1NzcwLWJhc2VkIElDRS9TVFVO L1RVUk4gdmVyc2lvbi4NCj4+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+PiBJIHJldmlld2VkIHRoZSBhYm92ZSBkcmFmdCBh bmQgbm90aWNlZCB0aGF0IGl0IHN0aWxsIGNvbnRhaW5zDQo+Pj4+PiBub3JtYXRpdmUgcmVmZXJl bmNlcyB0byBSRkM1NzcwIChwb2ludGVycyB0byBtYXRlcmlhbCBmb3VuZCBvbmx5IGluDQo+Pj4+ PiBSRkM1NzcwKSB0aHJvdWdob3V0LCBhbmQgY29udGFpbnMgUkZDNTc3MCBhcyBhIG5vcm1hdGl2 ZSByZWZlcmVuY2UNCj4+Pj4+IGluIFNlY3Rpb24gOC4xLiAgSXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCB0 aGUgV0cgb3VnaHQgdG8gcHJvZHVjZSBhDQo+Pj4+PiBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRoYXQgY2FuIHN0 YW5kIGFsb25lIGZyb20gUkZDNTc3MCwgYmVjYXVzZSBhcyBpdA0KPj4+Pj4gc3RhbmRzIG5vdywg aXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCBzb21lb25lIGltcGxlbWVudGluZyBpdCB3b3VsZCBuZWVkDQo+ Pj4+PiB0byBjb25zdWx0IGJvdGggZHJhZnRzIGFuZCBtYXkgYmUgdW5jZXJ0YWluIGFib3V0IHdo YXQgaXMgc3RpbGwNCj4+Pj4+IGFwcGxpY2FibGUgZnJvbSBSRkM1NzcwLiAgRm9yIGV4YW1wbGUs IGlzIHRoZSBVRFAtRU5DQVBTVUxBVElPTg0KPj4+Pj4gbW9kZSBzdGlsbCB2YWxpZD8NCj4+Pg0K Pj4+IEluZGVlZCB0aGlzIHZhcmlhbnQgaXMgdGhlIHN0YW5kYXJkcy10cmFjayBzb2x1dGlvbiwg YnV0IEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgDQo+Pj4gbWFrZXMgc2Vuc2UgdG8gbm90IG9ic29sZXRlIHRoZSBSRkM1 NzcwLiBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgaW4gc29tZSBzY2VuYXJpbyANCj4+PiB0aGUgU1RVTiBiYXNlZCBz b2x1dGlvbiBjb3VsZCBiZSBiZXR0ZXIgdGhhbiBuYXRpdmUgSElQIGJhc2VkLiBBbmQgYWxzbyAN Cj4+PiB0aGUgVURQLUVOQ0FQU1VMQVRJT04gbW9kZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgc3RpbGwgdmFsaWQuDQo+ Pj4NCj4+Pj4+IElDRSAoUkZDIDUyNDUpIGlzIGFsc28gc3RpbGwgbGlzdGVkIGFzIG5vcm1hdGl2 ZSBidXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUNCj4+Pj4+IHRoYXQgaXQgc2hvdWxkIGFsc28gYmUgaW5mb3Jt YXRpdmUgaW4gdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IFRoZSBkZXRhaWxzIG9mIGUuZy4sIGhvdyBJ Q0UgY2hlY2tsaXN0cyBhcmUgdXNlZCBhcmUgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBSRkM1MjQ1IA0KPj4+IHNvIEkg dGhpbmsgaXQgbmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgbm9ybWF0aXZlLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4+PiBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IHdv dWxkIGJlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHRvIGp1c3QgcmVmZXJlbmNlIDU3NzAgaW4gdGhlDQo+Pj4+PiBJ bnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24sIHN0YXRpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gcmVwbGFjZXMgUkZD IDU3NzANCj4+Pj4+IHdpdGggYSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbWVjaGFuaXNtIHRoYW4gSUNFL1NUVU4vVFVS TiwgYW5kIHRoZW4gdHJ5IHRvDQo+Pj4+PiBhdm9pZCByZWZlcmVuY2luZyA1NzcwIGZyb20gdGhl biBvbi4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEF2b2lkaW5nIFJGQyA1NzcwIGFsdG9nZXRoZXIgd291bGQgcmVxdWly ZSBsb3RzIG9mIGVkaXRvcmlhbCB3b3JrIHdpdGggDQo+Pj4gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBmb3IgYSBxdWVz dGlvbmFibGUgYW1vdW50IG9mIGJlbmVmaXQsIHNvIEkgdGhpbmsgaXQncyBiZXR0ZXIgDQo+Pj4g aWYgd2Ugc2ltcGx5IGhhdmUgaXQgYXMgbm9ybWF0aXZlIHJlZmVyZW5jZS4gVGhlIG1hdHVyaXR5 IGxldmVsIG9mIDU3NzAgDQo+Pj4gKGV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbCkgaXMgYW4gaXNzdWUsIGJ1dCBJIHRo aW5rIGl0IGlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIC0gYW5kIG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlIA0KPj4+IC0gdG8gbWFrZSBhbiBl eGNlcHRpb24gaGVyZS4NCj4+IA0KPj4gQXJpLCBJIGhhdmUgdGhvdWdodCBhYm91dCB0aGlzIGFu ZCBpdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGFyZSB0d28gaXNzdWVzIHRvIGRpc2N1c3MuDQo+ PiANCj4+IFRoZXJlIGlzIGEgdGVjaG5pY2FsIGlzc3VlIHRvIHJlc29sdmUsIHdoaWNoIGlzIHdo ZXRoZXIgdGhlIFdHIHdhbnRzIHRvIGtlZXAgUkZDNTc3MCBzb2x1dGlvbnMgYXMgbm9uLW9ic29s ZXRlLCBhbmQgaG93IHRvIGV4cHJlc3MgdGhlc2Ugb3B0aW9ucyB0byBmdXR1cmUgaW1wbGVtZW50 ZXJzLiAgSSBoYWQgdGhvdWdodCB0aGF0IHRoZSBXRyBwb3NpdGlvbiB3YXMgdG8gZHJvcCBzdXBw b3J0IGZvciBTVFVOLWJhc2VkIHNvbHV0aW9ucywgYnV0IHlvdSBhcmUgc3VnZ2VzdGluZyBub3cg dG8ga2VlcCBpdCBhY3RpdmUsIHBlcmhhcHMgYXMgYSBNQVkgaW1wbGVtZW50PyAgIEl0IHNlZW1z IHRvIG1lIHRoYXQgdGhlIGJhc2ljIFVEUC1FTkNBUFNVTEFUSU9OIG1vZGUgc2hvdWxkIHN0aWxs IGJlIGtlcHQgbWFuZGF0b3J5IHNpbmNlIGl0IGlzIHRoZSBiYXNpcyBmb3IgdGhlIG90aGVyIGFw cHJvYWNoIGFuZCBpcyB1c2VmdWwgYnkgaXRzZWxmLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBUaGVuIHRoZXJlIGlzIHRo ZSBlZGl0b3JpYWwgaXNzdWUgYWJvdXQgaG93IHRvIG1lZXQgSUVURiBndWlkZWxpbmVzIG9uIGhv dyB0aGluZ3MgYXJlIGNyb3NzLXJlZmVyZW5jZWQgYW5kIHVzZSBvZiBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZS9ub3Jt YXRpdmUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcywgd2hpY2ggc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgcmlza3kgYXQgdGhlIG1vbWVudCAo aS5lLiwgSSBhbSBhbnRpY2lwYXRpbmcgYSBkb3duc3RyZWFtIHJldmlld2VyIGV4cHJlc3Npbmcg dGhpcyBzYW1lIGNvbmNlcm4pLiAgUGx1cyB0aGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgZ29hbCBvZiBtYWtpbmcgaXQg Y2xlYXJlciB0byBpbXBsZW1lbnRlcnMuDQo+PiANCj4+IC0gVG9tDQo+PiANCj4NCj5fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPkhpcHNlYyBtYWlsaW5n IGxpc3QNCj5IaXBzZWNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xp c3RpbmZvL2hpcHNlYw0K From nobody Sat Feb 27 00:49:21 2016 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 04D881B3811 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 00:49:20 -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 EhcqIgK1msQF for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 00:49:19 -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 B7F0F1B380F for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 00:49:18 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79ec6d000002212-10-56d1630c47ea Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.87]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0E.61.08722.C0361D65; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:49:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.116] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:49:15 +0100 To: Jeff Ahrenholz , Tom Henderson , "ari.keranen@ericsson.com" , "jan.melen@ericsson.com" References: <56CDBDA1.7050207@ericsson.com> <3CEE85EA-C996-4B28-B0A3-DA8B158BD159@temperednetworks.com> From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56D1630A.7000209@ericsson.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 10:49:14 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3CEE85EA-C996-4B28-B0A3-DA8B158BD159@temperednetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7uC5P8sUwg6WNfBZTF01mtmidcpPZ Yub5g2wOzB5Llvxk8ti6p5PFo+V6TABzFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG0/VzmAv2M1UcevaVpYHx N2MXIyeHhICJxIzzN6FsMYkL99azdTFycQgJHGaUeLjlLROEs5ZR4uPPBjaQKmEBe4mT+26x gyREBM4ySnS8W88OUbWSUeLboV1MIFXMAuoSzb3nwGw2AQuJLbfus4DYvALaEv0LF4NNYhFQ lbg2azcziC0qECNxsfMIE0SNoMTJmU/A6jkFPCSu/PwKtIADaKamxPpd+hDj5SW2v50D1ioE NHL5sxaWCYyCs5B0z0LomIWkYwEj8ypG0eLU4qTcdCMjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwBA+uOW3 wQ7Gl88dDzEKcDAq8fB+uHEhTIg1say4MvcQowQHs5II726Fi2FCvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWH GKU5WJTEeVc7rw8TEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MM58mbYzf63v8p4j7+cvdmmam/n73Bw7 u4nMHWVOcx69/fzS0G3L3BkvHk3T/vJ8f7VHxiy59P8bv+q4TvB/tet938nH015FHg/xl39W eac2aV1+ecebB+vPP/9X/720j2G6rM6S3RGtXbZuSyR+bJI0jpik//D76d1fpoTvvZt3oNfx 3F++gsQ6JZbijERDLeai4kQA34aOXl0CAAA= Archived-At: Cc: "hipsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 08:49:20 -0000 Hi Jeff, thanks for your feedback. > Regarding pros/cons: > How widely-deployed is STUN/TURN? Are public servers widespread? there are several of them. They are mostly used for VoIP. You can google for "public stun turn servers" or something similar. There are a few lists out there. Cheers, Gonzalo From nobody Mon Feb 29 06:41:32 2016 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 2C5321B3281 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:41:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 w-v4GgC54gtS for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:41:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E35581B3280 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 06:41:28 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79836d000006396-9c-56d45896e63b Received: from ESESSHC024.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.90]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A4.76.25494.69854D65; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:41:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from [153.88.190.38] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:41:25 +0100 To: References: <56CDBDA1.7050207@ericsson.com> <3CEE85EA-C996-4B28-B0A3-DA8B158BD159@temperednetworks.com> <56D1630A.7000209@ericsson.com> From: Miika Komu Organization: Ericsson AB Message-ID: <56D45895.2060503@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:41:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56D1630A.7000209@ericsson.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms090604090806030705010009" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7lO60iCthBmc6xSymLprM7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujDm7+5kL3llWHHvQx9rAuNysi5GTQ0LAROL2r10sELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAQOM0p03+plhXBWM0ocvb4FrEpYwF7i5L5b7CC2iICoxJQPp5lBbCGB04wSn6+6 gdhsAloSq+5cB4vzC0hKbGjYDWbzCmhL/JoLMpSTg0VAVWLm3ItMILaoQITE4c4udogaQYmT M5+A7eIU0JG4/ns22BHMAt2MEj33lwI5HEDLVCQuHguewCgwC0nLLGRlIAlmAVuJO3N3M0PY 2hLLFr6Gsq0lZvw6yAZhK0pM6X7IDmGbSrw++pERwjaWWLbuL9sCRo5VjKLFqcXFuelGxnqp RZnJxcX5eXp5qSWbGIHhf3DLb90djKtfOx5iFOBgVOLh3eB8OUyINbGsuDL3EKMK0JxHG1Zf YJRiycvPS1US4V3neSVMiDclsbIqtSg/vqg0J7X4EKM0B4uSOC/bJ6BOgfTEktTs1NSC1CKY LBMHp1QD45SAmXM7ptczyRrVTnvCeOLUlzLt9kmMW1R6Zlf5pVbcMO8+dKT6xc77tm5C147b bLBpFEx+151jf2TOi7nJDjWTj+hyyu/31dP9XnetmWHBD++DM05EBH7aJODCMpmHdWeJ87Pl UaoeRi29+Vu3u63r6tWfe6np5scjtWufeE5hFSm0e5N/TImlOCPRUIu5qDgRAG8VVKmHAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal 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, 29 Feb 2016 14:41:31 -0000 --------------ms090604090806030705010009 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On 02/27/2016 10:49 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > thanks for your feedback. > >> Regarding pros/cons: >> How widely-deployed is STUN/TURN? Are public servers widespread? > > there are several of them. They are mostly used for VoIP. You can googl= e > for "public stun turn servers" or something similar. There are a few > lists out there. I guess the situation is like this: HIP control plane relay: * new critical infrastructure that needs to be deployed anyway (TURN=20 server cannot be used for this) Gathering of address candidates: * from a STUN server (many available) * ...or from control plane relay registration (which is mandatory anyway)= Data plane relay: * using TURN server (it seems some are available) * ...or using the ESP relay as specified in native NAT spec (none=20 deployed, but I guess could co-locate with the HIP control plane relay) So, the critical part are the HIP control plane relays which provide=20 also similar functionality as STUN servers (i.e. provide server=20 reflexive candidates). So I guess the question boils down to the=20 availability of TURN servers. P.S. Nothing really prevents to use STUN servers to discover address=20 candidates in the native NAT traversal version. The discovery process is = independent of the NAT penetration process. --------------ms090604090806030705010009 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExDzANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFADCABgkqhkiG9w0BBwEAAKCC DKMwggXlMIIDzaADAgECAhAJdtiEOz4F3oNPssxObH7GMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMDoxETAP BgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMSUwIwYDVQQDDBxFcmljc3NvbiBOTCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBIHYy MB4XDTE0MTIxNTEyNDQwMVoXDTE3MTIxNTEyNDQwMFowYjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24x EzARBgNVBAMMCk1paWthIEtvbXUxJjAkBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWF21paWthLmtvbXVAZXJpY3Nz b24uY29tMRAwDgYDVQQFEwdlbWlpa29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKC AQEAsf2pgwYbVXxhx+wwvwrS5q56tLoEhnBUsb3JG3KHYATjfQryyJsDfn90YHMl49fXFORD tFO1PPA+QB22yusgCLhjgawckYn3XBzipClxTq1UHxNq01i/RzBotdrVWYMyP4KmsBzsg/vp 0Bu5KjltP6VBGpcOi8juVeXL10uNh4XpnBbaEq2uViZJOH9+mSr0IEgh4y/lEZKnlIGpcy3v lYL4S4Vhm8Ix9X8INveWuTMdo2od1j9fdEJgtv3cg5KN2+h+pI3oN8n5ikv1xs5kaDCYFunL UnMDglkcAT8k1ebqLV0jQUNSlvDCB2hrOzVFPyEycb0ZNbX1AkOTVnlrNwIDAQABo4IBvTCC AbkwSAYDVR0fBEEwPzA9oDugOYY3aHR0cDovL2NybC50cnVzdC50ZWxpYS5jb20vZXJpY3Nz b25ubGluZGl2aWR1YWxjYXYyLmNybDCBggYIKwYBBQUHAQEEdjB0MCgGCCsGAQUFBzABhhxo dHRwOi8vb2NzcDIudHJ1c3QudGVsaWEuY29tMEgGCCsGAQUFBzAChjxodHRwOi8vY2EudHJ1 c3QudGVsaWFzb25lcmEuY29tL2VyaWNzc29ubmxpbmRpdmlkdWFsY2F2Mi5jZXIwIgYDVR0R BBswGYEXbWlpa2Eua29tdUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20wVQYDVR0gBE4wTDBKBgwrBgEEAYIPAgMB ARIwOjA4BggrBgEFBQcCARYsaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlhc29uZXJh LmNvbS9DUFMwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQTnHDg 6XexOtdZ/qMkn3QHKZCVZDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSxDcrURrevhgLDL28Gyg52cX9LNzAOBgNV HQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBALSVMD6C/sZZz43wJ2r/Hp8BtBigpKc6 CuX60vmkzQ8vGrxeNbPJmkC56FSeGtFo85DtF56xyBd704T18jr1tHTXra8cNP37qABYzgaL aLuGjtqcOnGQY//0ZQfLJBfKJnlJHX9ZB+QFPbhwpOFm9QM2oRYFse0Gjc8LV3WJ0jMUMvZD FyYoZeQ+sak+mObsTRfkR2vsuuB4Elo4MSudCmZqqFUU7gBmp36G2ySJLt/tJlJDld+egJJP 1gXnGkwW2n33Gkcy+SVLj0CSTyy76GibPp72AiuR/wz+GIaCgQ3APVbWXkB3ld4avno+Mq2u 6+2qYphYsmYwIs5SUsh6Zn1OQWNKUtbZbs2z4ALQbA3rHmndI8eLf4z7ZqML6UBzrQjukWi0 6D8yV7OXLz/TzBrp1sdPpNpDVSEWmuC0dJ3Ro8UJOLiO91KtLKwTYOPVlg+u62A5vYN6DVyT nBksz5CpUiVN7x3DDAcjarORQnteoIwBaOeZd/JZJbr900UEOmt9aLXnh8vFZOOx7db0Xccb WO473yOnt/Kr9XX5t2kvFQnNSEI3RkFqM06z+r5WiZd+BhGJPSU80QNOJzzoEXT69DihhWhF pSirFDV6CdUSxKoFD/8qIkB2QXuQUESN0WUBuGy2HOuIqnx+BIR5fGFsaiFEY5pXLHeSvByA b3yTMIIGtjCCBJ6gAwIBAgIRAKAMy8ybmZjs4jpw9HzBwFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwNzEU MBIGA1UECgwLVGVsaWFTb25lcmExHzAdBgNVBAMMFlRlbGlhU29uZXJhIFJvb3QgQ0EgdjEw HhcNMTQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWhcNMjQwNTI3MDc0NjIxWjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEl MCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MjCCAiIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggIPADCCAgoCggIBANq6U+tfSJZTn4k46qN13HgaeXXsMmGSWShc6A5IEyFboXMZW3lF Hso+/6uO3ZilvB2ipZJhrhU+RL/va+5Chay/PZq9ZZeE9N03OsHfOzlwk7uwojJ34tHLiX/y QoriI+b5DXxfIYXTFO5zlZLdaIxJwlLEQp0g4/zF6EGtodlpusaH07FAcLiIEeTMPRgXcn+8 GoFOvtuVHNh/WHePlrupUgcI9/P54ITXvmZF6xcNBEjsu8yJm1VqqK0GXSgAmInJ4Ga8S6ME 2wgSBRDolxAUbmfLQRrMvLC/tyXBvuLO8uChdzpIWt3QPtMYm2R2V1Um0zANhenIUwYCKNPq 5/yHaS48jCsOBAU0TIhBnirnZmlEbC6ALqwzGAcQMaMD8LFf1oLlWLUQxEmI4YXqBXdP5XnI cMdIEF5BtUBebzBJMMF9dDB2uj8BeoRPSYbpGl7irYUYFpq4TyocQ7qpHdYASC+NV8VTaTrF nHWqa/CGRdp3GHpkgxfOBvpamOK8udHQYQo2uA3YNd2+j7p4C3jkGG+Z6RrZOskPEwtaIHLx BiA141dhCy5EScOyNajrAXQupsDnvr2ib2ef+4nObPFvedPWIe57lyj0n3e1rTqTGIBIe9wj NnAA6MqeaTS9HchPtBvOrah/cTWzXzGjwMz0P3UJqTQ2r5EAu12/W5kpAgMBAAGjggG4MIIB tDCBigYIKwYBBQUHAQEEfjB8MC0GCCsGAQUFBzABhiFodHRwOi8vb2NzcC50cnVzdC50ZWxp YXNvbmVyYS5jb20wSwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGP2h0dHA6Ly9yZXBvc2l0b3J5LnRydXN0LnRlbGlh c29uZXJhLmNvbS90ZWxpYXNvbmVyYXJvb3RjYXYxLmNlcjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEA MFUGA1UdIAROMEwwSgYMKwYBBAGCDwIDAQECMDowOAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWLGh0dHBzOi8vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vQ1BTMEsGA1UdHwREMEIwQKA+oDyGOmh0 dHA6Ly9jcmwtMy50cnVzdC50ZWxpYXNvbmVyYS5jb20vdGVsaWFzb25lcmFyb290Y2F2MS5j cmwwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNV HQ4EFgQUsQ3K1Ea3r4YCwy9vBsoOdnF/SzcwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU8I9ZOACz9Y+algzV6/p7 qhfoExIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAG4HIGyvrHc9kEKyYZtxJn9cv7S2dUxuUiegmAvU GHc+JGJyB2jyX7py9an8CsHAxg3BI3Ku9j0h7DJpXyfrlzmg36XYkNS7Ot0A1UqdjGFrtnII SI+Zj3ywHZudmDF8ktdBihHAjuk47B/Kg/Z8JhUJ37GGx/KxiIiXg5HMTdOl6mlDbJaTIEGa gdRcmH3u57r5snZ+qdVSg5UxWdhgS2+zPru/vDbPd+91zLTj9GejKXFJ6fEAOLW1j2IjJ0cy DI67d1/OzFTwCK8wYbhopK2wJ9QTKDQuWRuGoyt2d6yzd7WoAS55JE0BIt+kXDJGbOaK42H2 ifO6ERHbJiEr/oh4KzgdAes+GRjwlSaG2Z0va4Ss5lY6zfwVCEZYdZcjSDpKB0M5tTQYQeO7 QyQPOI6Gb4FXA9ko3sHvAPs4+Pq+UtWjp3y8sYr1vLCER9ePEsgLdCG27mUk9OAijkG6n5oE GOIn+70F+qvKpmm52dZ8b7DELfbuuk0CrY4p0WxH3bBt6FJkPeZJIB6YNXAYHZi7RcdBjLJh +lawbIYTJFIcoWFHAl0g0/NYsjz3DLhZz4+CrJ6SQSYmp7qDhdJAWPiaq3C+qE/h2DZAJwoz 9uHrZHB8zsZ5JL8sUZ7zgqYmNMN+9PxzasrycTJn96Y63AIZdDq1kIHIw0vF4PBTVMZtMYID FDCCAxACAQEwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjANBglghkgBZQMEAgEFAKCCAZcw GAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTYwMjI5MTQ0MTI1 WjAvBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxIgQgw77YQET4FBVQwAsRviOfANYTRki878zieP3HYsgGtyIwXQYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMVAwTjA6MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjElMCMGA1UEAwwcRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQSB2MgIQCXbYhDs+Bd6DT7LMTmx+xjBfBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFQ oE4wOjERMA8GA1UECgwIRXJpY3Nzb24xJTAjBgNVBAMMHEVyaWNzc29uIE5MIEluZGl2aWR1 YWwgQ0EgdjICEAl22IQ7PgXeg0+yzE5sfsYwbAYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMV8wXTALBglghkgBZQME ASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0D AgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQCf22i4pW6S YStfY5ZLAcHjPcrawgrFjzV5H7AhY66Jii0GyiXUDsmPWw/EoZDbGqabWXDYZfGVvWBNff6i 8VwVw3/xPksnxUmA7b/RxWJcWFNCekgxQKdOPnCpKnk/4ea6H36oHeGVsFv+uPTjVsbRE9C4 iPmjS3Vyl7YUOB3B2f1daXZbmE1ZD424IdEHhNH9XpHoNu6jcgOksB2WLI+IS7Z9kzKJ4JMB q8KY+y6bftNS5GGFKXB3vrOsjJk8yf2MTlh0dlrArNTJaxKyNwXfF1Njtu3tg9RYssada3j6 uJerHa/B+56aRCOyyiN0IDTZE34M4/rKevilt/mHWqsJAAAAAAAA --------------ms090604090806030705010009-- From nobody Mon Feb 29 23:58:59 2016 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 64D1C1AC3C6 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:58:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 ANoKpWqCtHxI for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:58:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70761AC3B8 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:58:55 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79836d000006396-5b-56d54bbd8ae2 Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.54]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6E.6B.25494.DBB45D65; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:58:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from [148.135.149.13] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:58:53 +0100 To: HIP References: <56C1B871.6090000@ericsson.com> From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: <56D54BBC.2090407@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:58:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C1B871.6090000@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7me5e76thBl9/qVlMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGX17PzMWPGarmDrhMlsD4ybWLkZODgkBE4neTdehbDGJC/fW s4HYQgKHGSU2vZbsYuQCslczSnx+ugIsISxgJfF3zUYwW0RAUqLn7lKWLkYOoCJtic0fq0DC bAIWEltu3WcBsXmBwj++PmAGsVkEVCQuN7eB7RIViJG42HmECaJGUOLkzCdg9ZwCOhLbnpxg B7GZBQwkjiyawwphy0tsfzuHGeI2bYnlz1pYJjAKzELSPgtJyywkLQsYmVcxihanFhfnphsZ 66UWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBAbgwS2/dXcwrn7teIhRgINRiYe34OyVMCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoi vFtdroYJ8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES52X7dDlMSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwLis YMuB+d2xG+OMH8f/nVfk0JE/3eNYS27jI0bRFz0rP8vFPb+V87GtN1Z8nkafhfn2WTf6anb1 vypyYFv9aI4Bh3LP5pwPVnfZSg0jFKYW1kqKVOk3dDLcbF5zXDx0Ti8ry1ce6dcz7y7W3WTc feK1pLLp2fvcQe2TDkT9tQx5/9PqTtqqEiWW4oxEQy3mouJEAJccIqM8AgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Hipsec] New WG item: HIP Diet EXchange (DEX) 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, 01 Mar 2016 07:58:57 -0000 Authors of draft-moskowitz-hip-rg-dex, could you please revise the draft as a WG item? Please, use the following file name in your submission: draft-ietf-hip-dex-00 Thanks, Gonzalo On 15/02/2016 1:37 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Folks, > > I have talked with our AD and he is OK with adding the following > milestone to our charter: > > o Develop a standards track specification of a light-weight HIP exchange > > The plan would be to take the following draft as the WG item associated > with the milestone: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-hip-dex/ > > Please, let us know if you have comments (positive or negative) on this. > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >