Subject: [Hipsec] Base HIP: 02 pre2

From: Petri Jokela <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:51:44 +0200

Folks,

I uploaded the base draft's current snapshot to

http://www.hip4inter.net/drafts.php

(txt, html and diffs as usual) I have made some changes that I have 
received since pre-1 version. The biggest change is the UPDATE packet 
handling.

ESP is still defined as a MUST implementation so that we have something 
common between two implementations.

There are some questions that have come up (now or earlier):

In 6.2.7 HIP_TRANSFORM

XXX: Deprecate MD5 in the light of recent development?

Shall we deprecate?

In 6.3. ICMP messages

Any need to say more about rate limitations?

In 8.9 Sending UPDATE packets, at bullet 4.

Pekka N: "Do we need exponential back off?  If not, why not?
Usually dropped packets are taken as an indication of
congestion, and therefore TCP backs off exponentially."

I haven't yet edited this one into the text, but it sounds reasonable. 
Any objections?

ISSUES in the tracker:

#49 IANA considerations section

Requires something more.

#52 Restricting HIT values

I haven't yet edited changes into the draft. I will most likely follow 
the discussion that was on the mailing list.

#53 Move LSIs to a separate draft

LSIs are still in the current draft version but can be removed as there 
has not been any objections on the mailing list.

#54 Move Appendix A. API issues to a separate draft

Same comments as in #53.

#55 User data transport format negotiation

The current draft version contains a "negotiation".

o TLV type values between 2048-4095 are reserved for new transport formats.
o These values do NOT describe the TLV order in the HIP packet (as is 
the case with other TLV type values)
o The transport format TLVs are inserted in the packet in the order of 
preference.

The text in the draft related to this issue is still quite bad and must 
be edited.

Related to this, Pekka put in one mail a quick proposal about 
introducing new TLV type areas, something like:

     0- 1023:  Fundamental functionality, WG action
            - move echo_RESPONSE to 1020

  1024- 2047: Reserved
  2048- 4095: Transform parameters
  4096-32768: Reserved
32768-48XXX: Vendor
48XXX-65365: Fundamental functionality, WG action

Any comments on this?

/Petri

-- 
Petri Jokela                        Tel:    +358 9 299 2413
Research scientist                  Fax:    +358 9 299 3535
NomadicLab, Ericsson Research       Mobile: +358 44 299 2413
Oy L M Ericsson Ab                  email: [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://honor.trusecure.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:04:51 -0800

Petri,
I started reviewing the 02-pre2 draft, and have just a few editorial
comments:

in the abstract (p1):
/subsequent HIP message/subsequent HIP messages/
/session keys other security protocols/session keys for other security
protocols/

"The basic HIP exchange for two public hosts shows the actual packet
flow."
The above sentence has been in the abstract since the moskowitz-01
version (5 years); it does not make sense to me.

section 1.1 (p6)
/not good for using as/not good for use as/
/or as a index/nor as an index/

section 3.1.1 (p11)
/has the same length than the/has the same length as the/
/HI.n_len/HI.RSA.n_len/

section 4.1.1 (p16)
/function such be used/function should be used/

4.1.2 (p17)
/and its the encrypted public authentication key/and its encrypted
public authentication key/

6.2.18
remember my post from
<http://honor.trusecure.com/pipermail/hipsec/2004-June/000777.html>?
I think it should be noted that one of the ECHO_REQUESTs is critical
while the other is not.

-Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petri Jokela [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Hipsec] Base HIP: 02 pre2
> 
> 
> 
> Folks,
>