Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Some comments on CTP

From: "Paine, Richard H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:10:39 -0700

The Host Identity Payload (HIP) offers this per-packet authentication.  The group working HIP in the IETF includes Bob Moskowitz and Tom Henderson of Boeing.  Why not include HIP as part of the Seamoby specs?  

Richard H. Paine
Success is getting what you want, happiness is liking what you get!
Work: 425-865-4921
Pager: 206-797-4580
Cell:  206-854-8199
IPPhone:  425-373-8964
Email:  [email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Soliman Hesham [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 6:18 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Some comments on CTP

 > > Authentication of the end points does not provide tamper 
 > resistance.
 > > Each message needs to be signed somehow (i.e. message digest etc).  > > I see that in the appendix IPsec is talked about.  Why not mandate  > > IPsec as the minimal supported SA between pAR and nAR?  If 
 > something
 > > else is used it must provide privacy (encryption), authentication,  > > replay protection, etc.  > 
 > Do folks think that mandatory IPsec is reasonable here?

=> Yes. And you need to specify how to do that. I mean, 
a side effect of this would be that all UDP traffic will
be secure (from a quick read I saw that UDP is the transport protocol for CTP).

Hesham
_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:10:25 -0700

Richard,

IETF Working Groups work according to a charter. The Seamoby charter
(currently way out of date) does not include HIP. The only two active
items in the charter are Context Transfer and Candidate Access Router
Discovery (IP Paging was dropped a few years ago). We are currently
trying to complete these items so we can close the Working Group,
since it has been three years since the work started and we really do
need to show some accomplishment.

If you'd like to see some standardization action on HIP, I'd suggest
you talk to the ADs about sponsoring a BOF.  But please be forwarned
that HIP has already had BOFs several years ago, none of which
resulted in formation of a Working Group.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paine, Richard H" <[email-masked]>
To: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Some comments on CTP

> The Host Identity Payload (HIP) offers this per-packet
authentication.  The group working HIP in the IETF includes Bob
Moskowitz and Tom Henderson of Boeing.  Why not include HIP as part of
the Seamoby specs?
>  > > Each message needs to be signed somehow (i.e. message digest
etc).  > > I see that in the appendix IPsec is talked about.  Why not
mandate  > > IPsec as the minimal supported SA between pAR and nAR?
If
>  > something
>  > > else is used it must provide privacy (encryption),
authentication,  > > replay protection, etc.  >