From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tue Jun 1 02:24:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332373A6889 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 02:24:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kITv6kBkY-np for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 02:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056903A6930 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 02:24:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L3B000YHWRQRE20@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:23:50 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,339,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="59751433" Received: from relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-1) ([134.130.7.78]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:23:50 +0200 Received: from [192.168.2.103] ([unknown] [79.210.85.85]) by relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L3B000RLWRPCX10@relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:23:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:24:02 +0200 Message-id: <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> To: Gonzalo Camarillo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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 Jun 2010 09:24:06 -0000 Hi Gonzalo, I could give a more precise presentation regarding the changes in 5201 (the last one was quite quick and high level) but I think it would be most important to have some people to review the documents. I hope we will have the last issues sorted out within the next two weeks so that we can submit a new draft. I have no issues coming to Maastricht for it is very close to the place I live but I think with sufficient participation on the mailing list we can possibly skip the face-to-face meeting. Tobias Am 31.05.2010 um 16:11 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: > Hi, > > it is clear we need to have the documents reviewed. However, do you > expect the reviewers to find issues that will require face-to-face > discussions? If we need face-to-face time, I am happy to request a slot. > However, I would not like to request a slot just to show a few slides > without discussions. > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > > On 25/05/2010 6:36 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz >>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:44 PM >>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo >>> Cc: HIP >>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? >>> >>> On 05/24/2010 12:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> we need to decide whether or not we need face-to-face time >>> during the >>>> next IETF. Opinions? >>>> >>> >>> It would be 'nice' to have a serious document review at that time. >>> >>> There shouldn't be quite the 'hand waving' we did at Anahiem, >>> but actual >>> documents for people to have read over and be reading to hum on or >>> supply changes. >>> >> >> I cannot attend but I tend to agree that a review would be helpful to move things along, if you can form a quorum. >> >> - Tom > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec -- Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi From rgm@htt-consult.com Tue Jun 1 04:26:51 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57C33A67D7 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:26:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nLGs9hYDn-ds for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC043A67B5 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046AA68B5A; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lv+28swPFDJj; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 07:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92E2D68B50; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 07:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 07:26:25 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Heer References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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 Jun 2010 11:26:52 -0000 On 06/01/2010 05:24 AM, Tobias Heer wrote: > Hi Gonzalo, > > I could give a more precise presentation regarding the changes in 5201 (the last one was quite quick and high level) but I think it would be most important to have some people to review the documents. I hope we will have the last issues sorted out within the next two weeks so that we can submit a new draft. > I would actually like to see a document reading meeting. We have a formal review of each section and get exact editorial/techincal changes. We do this a lot in IEEE 802, and I have done it in the past at IETF. > I have no issues coming to Maastricht for it is very close to the place I live but I think with sufficient participation on the mailing list we can possibly skip the face-to-face meeting. > > Tobias > > Am 31.05.2010 um 16:11 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: > > >> Hi, >> >> it is clear we need to have the documents reviewed. However, do you >> expect the reviewers to find issues that will require face-to-face >> discussions? If we need face-to-face time, I am happy to request a slot. >> However, I would not like to request a slot just to show a few slides >> without discussions. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> On 25/05/2010 6:36 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org >>>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz >>>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:44 PM >>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo >>>> Cc: HIP >>>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? >>>> >>>> On 05/24/2010 12:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> we need to decide whether or not we need face-to-face time >>>>> >>>> during the >>>> >>>>> next IETF. Opinions? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It would be 'nice' to have a serious document review at that time. >>>> >>>> There shouldn't be quite the 'hand waving' we did at Anahiem, >>>> but actual >>>> documents for people to have read over and be reading to hum on or >>>> supply changes. >>>> >>>> >>> I cannot attend but I tend to agree that a review would be helpful to move things along, if you can form a quorum. >>> >>> - Tom >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> Hipsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> > > > > From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Tue Jun 1 04:30:49 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEBA3A69BF for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:30:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.068 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.931, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TgWJ94xDP25i for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D09C3A69BE for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:30:47 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b13ae0000071b2-1e-4c04ef5a88e2 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 91.2C.29106.A5FE40C4; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:30:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:30:33 +0200 Received: from [131.160.126.212] ([131.160.126.212]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:30:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4C04EF58.9050200@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:30:32 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Moskowitz References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> In-Reply-To: <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2010 11:30:33.0394 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9087120:01CB017D] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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 Jun 2010 11:30:49 -0000 Hi Bob, you want to edit the draft in real time during the face-to-face meeting? Wouldn't it be more efficient to agree on what the draft needs to say and then have the editor craft the exact text offline? Cheers, Gonzalo On 01/06/2010 2:26 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > On 06/01/2010 05:24 AM, Tobias Heer wrote: >> Hi Gonzalo, >> >> I could give a more precise presentation regarding the changes in 5201 (the last one was quite quick and high level) but I think it would be most important to have some people to review the documents. I hope we will have the last issues sorted out within the next two weeks so that we can submit a new draft. >> > > I would actually like to see a document reading meeting. We have a > formal review of each section and get exact editorial/techincal changes. > We do this a lot in IEEE 802, and I have done it in the past at IETF. > > >> I have no issues coming to Maastricht for it is very close to the place I live but I think with sufficient participation on the mailing list we can possibly skip the face-to-face meeting. >> >> Tobias >> >> Am 31.05.2010 um 16:11 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> it is clear we need to have the documents reviewed. However, do you >>> expect the reviewers to find issues that will require face-to-face >>> discussions? If we need face-to-face time, I am happy to request a slot. >>> However, I would not like to request a slot just to show a few slides >>> without discussions. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> >>> On 25/05/2010 6:36 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:44 PM >>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo >>>>> Cc: HIP >>>>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? >>>>> >>>>> On 05/24/2010 12:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> we need to decide whether or not we need face-to-face time >>>>>> >>>>> during the >>>>> >>>>>> next IETF. Opinions? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It would be 'nice' to have a serious document review at that time. >>>>> >>>>> There shouldn't be quite the 'hand waving' we did at Anahiem, >>>>> but actual >>>>> documents for people to have read over and be reading to hum on or >>>>> supply changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I cannot attend but I tend to agree that a review would be helpful to move things along, if you can form a quorum. >>>> >>>> - Tom >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>> >> >> >> >> From rgm@htt-consult.com Fri Jun 4 14:39:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4343A68D5 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:39:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.018 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.019, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JtM6L68SaP77 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AFF3A6782 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A5468B47; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 21:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xv8oLm-HC5+f; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6552968A8A; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C09728F.7020801@htt-consult.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:39:27 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gonzalo Camarillo References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> <4C04EF58.9050200@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4C04EF58.9050200@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 04 Jun 2010 21:39:57 -0000 On 06/01/2010 07:30 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi Bob, > > you want to edit the draft in real time during the face-to-face meeting? > Wouldn't it be more efficient to agree on what the draft needs to say > and then have the editor craft the exact text offline? > You have never attended an IEEE 802 meeting, then. Yes text is crafted right then and there. Scary. But then for 802, it is one of the key ways to make headway on documents... Years back when I was co-chairing IPsec, we had a document reading dinner. We broke into teams having different nationalities on each team; each team with a diffferent docuement. Some changes were exact text changes, others were 'this needs something', but it was a major movement forward in the document. it is just that at least for 5201-bis, it has taken Tobias and I a lot of work to craft the changes. I for one want a group of people to seriously sit down and go through it, so this will NOT drag out. (and Tobias has supplied a lot more of the text than me; I have been more 'we need something here'). > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > On 01/06/2010 2:26 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > >> On 06/01/2010 05:24 AM, Tobias Heer wrote: >> >>> Hi Gonzalo, >>> >>> I could give a more precise presentation regarding the changes in 5201 (the last one was quite quick and high level) but I think it would be most important to have some people to review the documents. I hope we will have the last issues sorted out within the next two weeks so that we can submit a new draft. >>> >>> >> I would actually like to see a document reading meeting. We have a >> formal review of each section and get exact editorial/techincal changes. >> We do this a lot in IEEE 802, and I have done it in the past at IETF. >> >> >> >>> I have no issues coming to Maastricht for it is very close to the place I live but I think with sufficient participation on the mailing list we can possibly skip the face-to-face meeting. >>> >>> Tobias >>> >>> Am 31.05.2010 um 16:11 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> it is clear we need to have the documents reviewed. However, do you >>>> expect the reviewers to find issues that will require face-to-face >>>> discussions? If we need face-to-face time, I am happy to request a slot. >>>> However, I would not like to request a slot just to show a few slides >>>> without discussions. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >>>> >>>> On 25/05/2010 6:36 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz >>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:44 PM >>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo >>>>>> Cc: HIP >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/24/2010 12:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we need to decide whether or not we need face-to-face time >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> during the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> next IETF. Opinions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> It would be 'nice' to have a serious document review at that time. >>>>>> >>>>>> There shouldn't be quite the 'hand waving' we did at Anahiem, >>>>>> but actual >>>>>> documents for people to have read over and be reading to hum on or >>>>>> supply changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I cannot attend but I tend to agree that a review would be helpful to move things along, if you can form a quorum. >>>>> >>>>> - Tom >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Hipsec mailing list >>>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Mon Jun 7 08:18:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CA63A67A5 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H5jqg1ouWPuX for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117D43A6EDE for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 00:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b80ae000001aa1-e7-4c0ca51b7d2a Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 14.BD.06817.B15AC0C4; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:51:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:51:54 +0200 Received: from [131.160.37.44] ([131.160.37.44]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:51:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4C0CA519.8080103@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:51:53 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2010 07:51:53.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BB6F600:01CB0616] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Hipsec] Fwd: Re: Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 07 Jun 2010 15:18:18 -0000 Resending because the mailing list did not seem to be working this weekend. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:30:45 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo To: Robert Moskowitz CC: Tobias Heer , HIP WG Hi, I asked whether or not we need a face-to-face meeting a couple of weeks ago and we have gotten very few responses. With this level of energy, I do not think it is worthwhile requesting a session. However, if people do have the energy, please do not stay quiet; let us know on the list. Thanks, Gonzalo On 05/06/2010 12:39 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > On 06/01/2010 07:30 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi Bob, >> >> you want to edit the draft in real time during the face-to-face meeting? >> Wouldn't it be more efficient to agree on what the draft needs to say >> and then have the editor craft the exact text offline? >> > > You have never attended an IEEE 802 meeting, then. > > Yes text is crafted right then and there. Scary. But then for 802, it > is one of the key ways to make headway on documents... > > Years back when I was co-chairing IPsec, we had a document reading > dinner. We broke into teams having different nationalities on each > team; each team with a diffferent docuement. Some changes were exact > text changes, others were 'this needs something', but it was a major > movement forward in the document. > > it is just that at least for 5201-bis, it has taken Tobias and I a lot > of work to craft the changes. I for one want a group of people to > seriously sit down and go through it, so this will NOT drag out. (and > Tobias has supplied a lot more of the text than me; I have been more 'we > need something here'). > >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 01/06/2010 2:26 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> >>> On 06/01/2010 05:24 AM, Tobias Heer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Gonzalo, >>>> >>>> I could give a more precise presentation regarding the changes in 5201 (the last one was quite quick and high level) but I think it would be most important to have some people to review the documents. I hope we will have the last issues sorted out within the next two weeks so that we can submit a new draft. >>>> >>>> >>> I would actually like to see a document reading meeting. We have a >>> formal review of each section and get exact editorial/techincal changes. >>> We do this a lot in IEEE 802, and I have done it in the past at IETF. >>> >>> >>> >>>> I have no issues coming to Maastricht for it is very close to the place I live but I think with sufficient participation on the mailing list we can possibly skip the face-to-face meeting. >>>> >>>> Tobias >>>> >>>> Am 31.05.2010 um 16:11 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> it is clear we need to have the documents reviewed. However, do you >>>>> expect the reviewers to find issues that will require face-to-face >>>>> discussions? If we need face-to-face time, I am happy to request a slot. >>>>> However, I would not like to request a slot just to show a few slides >>>>> without discussions. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Gonzalo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 25/05/2010 6:36 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>>>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:44 PM >>>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo >>>>>>> Cc: HIP >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 05/24/2010 12:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we need to decide whether or not we need face-to-face time >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> during the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> next IETF. Opinions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be 'nice' to have a serious document review at that time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There shouldn't be quite the 'hand waving' we did at Anahiem, >>>>>>> but actual >>>>>>> documents for people to have read over and be reading to hum on or >>>>>>> supply changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot attend but I tend to agree that a review would be helpful to move things along, if you can form a quorum. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Tom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Hipsec mailing list >>>>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Mon Jun 7 08:49:28 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D76328C317 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:49:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Se5uwak8+wfR for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.73]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79AFE3A7C5F for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 05:27:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L3N00HC598Y0930@mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:26:58 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,378,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="60421128" Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:26:58 +0200 Received: from umic-i4-137-226-45-90.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.45.90]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L3N00M4J98YZ740@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:26:58 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <4C0CDEEA.1020803@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:27:18 +0200 Message-id: <62F64650-1A8D-47EB-B2A1-E8BC3402E83F@cs.rwth-aachen.de> References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> <4C04EF58.9050200@ericsson.com> <4C09728F.7020801@htt-consult.com> <14F2D5C2-1D22-4828-9D64-40A8FBB0C353@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C0CDEEA.1020803@ericsson.com> To: Gonzalo Camarillo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 07 Jun 2010 15:49:29 -0000 Hi Gonzalo, Am 07.06.2010 um 13:58 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: > Hi, > >> Gonzalo, are you fine with having >> such non-official small-scale meeting? > > people working on the drafts can unofficially meet as often as they > want. This happens all the time; people talk to each other on the phone, > on IM, by email, in person, etc. Sure we do. However, I would like to use the ML to arrange that, which makes it a little bit less private than usual. > What I need to know is whether or not > having an official HIP WG meeting makes sense. I am fine with not having one. Tobias > Thanks, > > Gonzalo -- Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Mon Jun 7 09:25:47 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC0428CB1C for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.767, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QBCFtRdl0yBl for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA59F3A7A5C for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 04:58:36 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b13ae0000071b2-b4-4c0cdeeb19d6 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 00.CA.29106.BEEDC0C4; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:58:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:58:35 +0200 Received: from [131.160.37.44] ([131.160.37.44]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:58:35 +0200 Message-ID: <4C0CDEEA.1020803@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:58:34 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Heer References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> <4C04EF58.9050200@ericsson.com> <4C09728F.7020801@htt-consult.com> <14F2D5C2-1D22-4828-9D64-40A8FBB0C353@cs.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <14F2D5C2-1D22-4828-9D64-40A8FBB0C353@cs.rwth-aachen.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2010 11:58:35.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1E09FD0:01CB0638] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 07 Jun 2010 16:25:48 -0000 Hi, > Gonzalo, are you fine with having > such non-official small-scale meeting? people working on the drafts can unofficially meet as often as they want. This happens all the time; people talk to each other on the phone, on IM, by email, in person, etc. What I need to know is whether or not having an official HIP WG meeting makes sense. Thanks, Gonzalo From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Mon Jun 7 09:41:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140313A6BB7 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lTwlhGCczue for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D893A7736 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 03:46:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L3N005CG4M5UZ00@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:46:53 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,377,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="60403530" Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:46:53 +0200 Received: from umic-i4-137-226-45-90.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.45.90]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L3N00M0K4M5Z720@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:46:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <4C09728F.7020801@htt-consult.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:47:12 +0200 Message-id: <14F2D5C2-1D22-4828-9D64-40A8FBB0C353@cs.rwth-aachen.de> References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> <4C04EF58.9050200@ericsson.com> <4C09728F.7020801@htt-consult.com> To: Robert Moskowitz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 07 Jun 2010 16:41:09 -0000 Hi Robert, Am 04.06.2010 um 23:39 schrieb Robert Moskowitz: > On 06/01/2010 07:30 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Hi Bob, >> >> you want to edit the draft in real time during the face-to-face meeting? >> Wouldn't it be more efficient to agree on what the draft needs to say >> and then have the editor craft the exact text offline? >> > > You have never attended an IEEE 802 meeting, then. > > Yes text is crafted right then and there. Scary. But then for 802, it is one of the key ways to make headway on documents... > > Years back when I was co-chairing IPsec, we had a document reading dinner. We broke into teams having different nationalities on each team; each team with a diffferent docuement. Some changes were exact text changes, others were 'this needs something', but it was a major movement forward in the document. I would be happy to attend such a meeting for HIP and Diet HIP. I think we can schedule the meeting independent of a WG meeting. This might make more sense anyway because there will be less people who just want to peek in and we can have more intensive discussions that way. I would suggest that we start a doodle to see who would like to attend and when it is convenient. Gonzalo, are you fine with having such non-official small-scale meeting? BR, Tobias > > it is just that at least for 5201-bis, it has taken Tobias and I a lot of work to craft the changes. I for one want a group of people to seriously sit down and go through it, so this will NOT drag out. (and Tobias has supplied a lot more of the text than me; I have been more 'we need something here'). > >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 01/06/2010 2:26 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> >>> On 06/01/2010 05:24 AM, Tobias Heer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Gonzalo, >>>> >>>> I could give a more precise presentation regarding the changes in 5201 (the last one was quite quick and high level) but I think it would be most important to have some people to review the documents. I hope we will have the last issues sorted out within the next two weeks so that we can submit a new draft. >>>> >>>> >>> I would actually like to see a document reading meeting. We have a >>> formal review of each section and get exact editorial/techincal changes. >>> We do this a lot in IEEE 802, and I have done it in the past at IETF. >>> >>> >>> >>>> I have no issues coming to Maastricht for it is very close to the place I live but I think with sufficient participation on the mailing list we can possibly skip the face-to-face meeting. >>>> >>>> Tobias >>>> >>>> Am 31.05.2010 um 16:11 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> it is clear we need to have the documents reviewed. However, do you >>>>> expect the reviewers to find issues that will require face-to-face >>>>> discussions? If we need face-to-face time, I am happy to request a slot. >>>>> However, I would not like to request a slot just to show a few slides >>>>> without discussions. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Gonzalo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 25/05/2010 6:36 AM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>>>> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:44 PM >>>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo >>>>>>> Cc: HIP >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 05/24/2010 12:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we need to decide whether or not we need face-to-face time >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> during the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> next IETF. Opinions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be 'nice' to have a serious document review at that time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There shouldn't be quite the 'hand waving' we did at Anahiem, >>>>>>> but actual >>>>>>> documents for people to have read over and be reading to hum on or >>>>>>> supply changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot attend but I tend to agree that a review would be helpful to move things along, if you can form a quorum. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Tom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Hipsec mailing list >>>>> Hipsec@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi From rgm@htt-consult.com Mon Jun 7 13:20:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B443A67C0 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:20:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.401 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i1tnPNXjdd85 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D53D3A65A6 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17BA68B64 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SuxiZRTk4buY for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2B6268B21 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C0D5491.6080406@htt-consult.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:20:33 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] existential forgeries and HIP DEX X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 07 Jun 2010 20:20:54 -0000 I am working out a challenge in HIP DEX on the cfrg list.... Note that HIP DEX does NOT have a cryptographic hash function. It's goal is to succeed with only a CMAC primative for all message reduction needs. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mcgrew-fundamental-ecc-03.txt explains that a cryptographic hash is needed on the message before signing to avoid an existential forgery. Huh what is that? So a little searching gets the definition where Malice can generate the same signature as Bob, using only the public key. At first blush, that does not seem to be an issue here, because R1, I2, and R2 are always signed, so what if Malice could have generated them too? Then I realized that with existential forgeries, the signature, by itself, cannot be trusted to prove ownership of the private key. More is needed. That *more* could be proof of using the private key, eg decrypting a secret encrypted with the public key. So I worked out the following R1through R2 exchange: Bob or Malice Alice or Malice2 Sign (Bob's PK, stuff) --------> <----------- Sign(Alice's PK, (stuff, Encrypt(Bob's PK, secret), MAC(secret)) Bob only Alice Only Sign (Bob's PK, (stuff, Encrypt(Alice's PK, secret2), MAC(secret)) --------> <----------- Encrypt (secret|secret2, data) --------> This is the best I have done (so far). It deviates from BEX in that the final keying material is NOT available in I2, only in R2. This means that KEYMAT needs to be run twice. A 'special' run for I2 and R2, then the 'real' run for all subsequent packets. This DOES simplify getting keying material from the Responder. I was doing it optionally in R1, when the Responder had I's PK in an ACL or some other source. This is cleaner. From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Mon Jun 7 23:46:41 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347893A69A5 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 23:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EiHg27WrbMy for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 23:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0B13A69AA for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 23:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b13ae0000071b2-3d-4c0de74f1d96 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 99.36.29106.F47ED0C4; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:46:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:46:38 +0200 Received: from [131.160.126.132] ([131.160.126.132]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:46:38 +0200 Message-ID: <4C0DE74E.2060509@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:46:38 +0300 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Heer References: <4BFAA6B0.6070806@ericsson.com> <4BFAE4F6.7090602@htt-consult.com> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CE97161CD@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4C03C38D.3000408@ericsson.com> <8E65F9C7-A00B-4CD2-8050-8CEAE0F29508@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C04EE61.2030008@htt-consult.com> <4C04EF58.9050200@ericsson.com> <4C09728F.7020801@htt-consult.com> <14F2D5C2-1D22-4828-9D64-40A8FBB0C353@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C0CDEEA.1020803@ericsson.com> <62F64650-1A8D-47EB-B2A1-E8BC3402E83F@cs.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <62F64650-1A8D-47EB-B2A1-E8BC3402E83F@cs.rwth-aachen.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2010 06:46:38.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[588C9F90:01CB06D6] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Face-to-face meeting? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 08 Jun 2010 06:46:41 -0000 Hi Tobias, > Sure we do. However, I would like to use the ML to arrange that, > which makes it a little bit less private than usual. feel free to use the mailing list to discuss the drafts. Cheers, Gonzalo From rgm@htt-consult.com Tue Jun 8 12:40:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BCF3A67D4 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:40:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.645 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.756, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmT0zdXvPwaO for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E26FB3A67A7 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E606868B63 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:33:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b0NUqKW+d2W3 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 15:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35E0B68B47 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 15:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C0E9CBD.20600@htt-consult.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:40:45 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] How much for that hash? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 08 Jun 2010 19:40:57 -0000 It is really being driven home to me how important a cryptographic hash is to a total security solution. Trying to design around this is really hard! So since the argument for not using a hash is the code cost, can anyone supply me with a good value for the amount of code (in Kb) for SHA-1? For SHA-256? Thank you. From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Tue Jun 8 22:38:26 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB6428B23E for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 22:38:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t1b5GbpTjb1k for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 22:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25123A68DA for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 22:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1862A4E6D1; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:38:25 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mBGntSyb0iRI; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:38:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7874E6C1; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:38:24 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C0F28D0.1080002@nomadiclab.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:38:24 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Heer References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Conflicting text in RFC5201 - RFC5201-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 09 Jun 2010 05:38:26 -0000 Hi, On 05/26/2010 01:37 PM, Tobias Heer wrote: > I have a question regarding some text in RFC5201 that conflicts with > the crypto agility that we envisioned. The new BEX will have to > start the negotiations of the DH groups already in I1 to allow the > Responder to pick a sensible DH group (there are simple > countermeasures against downgrade attacks, too, so don't worry). > Therefore, the I1 becomes slightly more important than it was > (although it stays unsigned and cheap). > > > In Section 4.1 RFC5201 states: > > ... 705 The Initiator first sends a trigger packet, I1, to > the 706 Responder. The packet contains the HIT of the > Initiator 707 and possibly the HIT of the Responder, if it > is known. 708 Moreover, it contains a list of Diffie Hellman > Group IDs 709 supported by the Initiator. Note 710 > that in some cases it may be possible to replace this trigger 711 > packet by some other form of a trigger, in which case the 712 > protocol starts with the Responder sending the R1 packet. ... > > With the DH group negotiations already starting in I1 it becomes > difficult to omit the I1 (you can do it but you lose DH crypto > agility). Moreover, I doubt that omitting the I1 works well even > without considering the DH group negotiations because some of the > measures to keep the Responder stateless until I2 rely on having > information from the I1 (IP address or HIT) for the puzzle/ opaque > data field. > > > My questions are: Is anyone using or does anyone intent to use this > omission of the I1? Is there any specification on how to do it (at > least this is the only place in 5201 where it is mentioned). Do we > need this feature because there are cases where you cannot send an > I1? And finally: can we live without that note? In HIP BONE we have thought about using this feature for DoS protection (and perhaps also for making the BeX via overlay faster): 3.3.1. DoS Protection [...] In an overlay scenario, there are multiple ways how this mechanism can be utilized within the overlay. One possibility is to cache the pre-generated R1 packets within the overlay and let the overlay directly respond with R1s to I1s. In that way the responder is not bothered at all until the initiator sends an I2 packet, with the puzzle solution. Furthermore, a more sophisticated overlay could verify that an I2 packet has a correctly solved puzzle before forwarding the packet to the responder. I think this is a useful feature, but since it's more of an optimization than something we rely on, if needed, we should be able to live without it too. Cheers, Ari From mkomu@cs.hut.fi Tue Jun 8 23:14:16 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB63A68F1 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:14:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ML+NPJEC-1G2 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1C33A68F0 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.192.7] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.54) id 1OMEYC-0000Y5-Iu for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:14:08 +0300 Message-ID: <4C0F31CA.6040101@cs.hut.fi> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:16:42 +0300 From: Miika Komu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11pre) Gecko/20100531 Shredder/3.0.6pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <4C0E9CBD.20600@htt-consult.com> In-Reply-To: <4C0E9CBD.20600@htt-consult.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Hipsec] How much for that hash? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 09 Jun 2010 06:14:17 -0000 On 08/06/10 22:40, Robert Moskowitz wrote: Hi, > It is really being driven home to me how important a cryptographic hash > is to a total security solution. Trying to design around this is really > hard! > > So since the argument for not using a hash is the code cost, can anyone > supply me with a good value for the amount of code (in Kb) for SHA-1? > For SHA-256? good point. I am not sure if this was a rhetorical question but replying nevertheless :) For example, the the SHA1 code in RFC4634 consists of total 700 hundreds lines of code, including the header file, or 332 physical lines of code (sloccount). From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Wed Jun 9 04:01:05 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FB33A690E for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 04:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.650, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-4Sqpaxh2vo for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 04:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E2C3A68E7 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 04:01:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Received: from ironport-out-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.41]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L3Q004HEULRSOB0@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:01:03 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,391,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="32219832" Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:01:03 +0200 Received: from umic-i4-137-226-45-90.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.45.90]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L3Q007UAULR5W20@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:01:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <4C0F28D0.1080002@nomadiclab.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:01:21 +0200 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <5B25778E-C574-4400-9B3B-A808BF343397@cs.rwth-aachen.de> References: <4C0F28D0.1080002@nomadiclab.com> To: Ari Keranen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Conflicting text in RFC5201 - RFC5201-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 09 Jun 2010 11:01:05 -0000 Hello Ari, Am 09.06.2010 um 07:38 schrieb Ari Keranen: > Hi, >=20 > On 05/26/2010 01:37 PM, Tobias Heer wrote: >> I have a question regarding some text in RFC5201 that conflicts with >> the crypto agility that we envisioned. The new BEX will have to >> start the negotiations of the DH groups already in I1 to allow the >> Responder to pick a sensible DH group (there are simple >> countermeasures against downgrade attacks, too, so don't worry). = Therefore, the I1 becomes slightly more important than it was >> (although it stays unsigned and cheap). >> In Section 4.1 RFC5201 states: >> ... 705 The Initiator first sends a trigger packet, I1, to >> the 706 Responder. The packet contains the HIT of the >> Initiator 707 and possibly the HIT of the Responder, if it >> is known. 708 Moreover, it contains a list of Diffie Hellman >> Group IDs 709 supported by the Initiator. Note 710 >> that in some cases it may be possible to replace this trigger 711 >> packet by some other form of a trigger, in which case the 712 >> protocol starts with the Responder sending the R1 packet. ... >> With the DH group negotiations already starting in I1 it becomes >> difficult to omit the I1 (you can do it but you lose DH crypto >> agility). Moreover, I doubt that omitting the I1 works well even >> without considering the DH group negotiations because some of the >> measures to keep the Responder stateless until I2 rely on having >> information from the I1 (IP address or HIT) for the puzzle/ opaque >> data field. >> My questions are: Is anyone using or does anyone intent to use this >> omission of the I1? Is there any specification on how to do it (at >> least this is the only place in 5201 where it is mentioned). Do we >> need this feature because there are cases where you cannot send an >> I1? And finally: can we live without that note? >=20 > In HIP BONE we have thought about using this feature for DoS = protection (and perhaps also for making the BeX via overlay faster): >=20 > 3.3.1. DoS Protection > [...] > In an overlay scenario, there are multiple ways how this mechanism > can be utilized within the overlay. One possibility is to cache the > pre-generated R1 packets within the overlay and let the overlay > directly respond with R1s to I1s. In that way the responder is not > bothered at all until the initiator sends an I2 packet, with the > puzzle solution. Furthermore, a more sophisticated overlay could > verify that an I2 packet has a correctly solved puzzle before > forwarding the packet to the responder. >=20 > I think this is a useful feature, but since it's more of an = optimization than something we rely on, if needed, we should be able to = live without it too. >=20 >=20 have you considered Ren=E9's proposal regarding the use of an I1-less = BEX? The procedure of opportunistically responding with any DH group or = a way of telling the preferred DH groups in a DHT packet could be = options, right? BR,=20 Tobias > Cheers, > Ari --=20 Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group=20 RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi From rgm@htt-consult.com Thu Jun 10 08:31:20 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F4F28C141 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.923 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.278, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsgcZRh1hFGX for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43AAD3A69B6 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E938F68B48 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnZ2Vg+wFz3p for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8005468B27 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C110528.2030403@htt-consult.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:30:48 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] Progress on HIP DEX X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 10 Jun 2010 15:31:20 -0000 First I have recognized that without a hash, you cannot offer ECDSA. In fact without a hash (or rather a compress function that offers collision resistance), a signing with ECC is NOT ECDSA by definition, it is something else. So I have designed HIP DEX to only use: AES-CCM CMAC ECC ElGamel Encryption (is there a nice acronym for this?) Since there is no signing function, HIP DEX does not use the SIGMA model, but I believe that I provide (by the end of the exchange) the same proofs. This protocol is expected to run over networks that lose lots of packets, so you need to ensure success by aggressive retransmission of packets until you get proof that your packet was received. To this end there is a timer, t, in msec there is also a lifetime (when sender will just quit sending) in msec. Example values of 100,3000. This retransmission also plays an interesting part in completing to exchange, so timers are used even when there is no packet loss. With all of this there are subtle differences between the BEX and DEX state machines. parties are: I ::= Initator R ::= Responder MR ::= Malicious Responder IR ::= Malicious Initator Values are: PK ::= Public key of t ::= retransmit timer value and lifetime n ::= nonce Pn ::= Puzzle based on and containing nonce n Sn ::= Puzzle solution based on nonce n x,y ::= random secrets Functions are: ECR ::= ECC ElGamal Encryption MAC ::= CMAC | ::= concatination || ::= Key expansion extraction R or MR I or IR I1 ::= <--- t R1 ::= t, Pn, PKr ------> I2 ::= <--- t, Pn, Sn, PKi, ECR(PKr,n|x), MAC(x,(t, Pn, Sn, PKi, ECR(PKr,n|x))) R I or IR R2 ::= n, ECR(PKi,n|y), MAC(x, (n, ECR(PKi,n|y))) ------> R I <--- Data, MAC(x||y, Data) ------> I starts sending I1 and continues send it until it receives R1 R sends R1 and continues to send it until it receives I2 I sends I2 and continues send it until it receives R2, then it transistions to connected state R sends R2 and continues send it until it stops receiving I2, then it transistions to connected state R1 and I2 need to be held to check incoming for duplicates. I am not sure what the processing logic should be if there are differences between packets. Process first and drop all duplicates and deviants? Process deviants as they may be the actual uncorrupted (by Malice) packets? Note that R1 does NOT have any integrity proof. MR could get mean. Without this retransmission, there would have to be an extended exchange to prove completeness. After the first datagram is received by R, each party has proved ownership of their private key, there is no proof that R is whom I **THINKS** R is nor about who I is for R. That all has to be established else how (eg ACLS of PKs). This lack of proof of I owning PKi until receipt of data is one of the key claims that DEX looses. It would take an I3 to 'fix' this without R's HIP 'snooping' into the start of ESP traffic. The end of I2 packets is only an ASSuMption of proof. Note that DEX does not have PFS. It does take the theft of both private keys to gain x & y of a recorded exchange. I2 should probably be: I2 ::= <--- t, Pn, Sn, PKr, PKi, ECR(PKr,n|x), MAC(x,(t, Pn, Sn, PKr, PKi, ECR(PKr,n|x))) The adding of PKr 'helps' R in acting on I2 as it weakens a substitution attack on R1 by MR. I think. As implied by the datagram, the established key is x||y where || is some KEYMAT function built on the MAC function (thus imposing constraints on x and y). I feel a bit like diving off into the deep end of the pool without my swimming trunks properly tied. But I think I have a safe exchange. And it is the barebones minimum in crypto functions. From rgm@htt-consult.com Thu Jun 10 09:02:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C653A696E for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:02:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.716 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NFRTIfOaoSY9 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10003A68FC for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361EB68A94 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V33LwH8JwSj3 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4802A68B49 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C110C8D.4000503@htt-consult.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:02:21 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] Password authentication for HIP DEX X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 10 Jun 2010 16:02:53 -0000 Password authentication for HIP DEX may be used for initial ACL bootstraping (how a new I introduces itself to R) of for emergency access (EMT needs access to a pacemaker or field tech needs access to a substation switch). Note that if I does not have PKr from a source other than R1, this process is open to rogue attack then offline dictionary attack against the secret. There is no way that R can protect its password from a misbehaving I. This is a simple password authentication. I am going to study 802.11s ECC zero-knowledge password authentication that Dan Harkins developed to see if I could use it instead... Anyway on to the process, it is very simple. P ::= password Pl ::=length of password If Pl != 128 then P = AES-CMAC(0^128, P, Pl) Add the following to I2: ECR(PKr, MAC(P, n)) This parameter is included in the MAC of I2. Only the owner of the R private key can look at the MAC result to see if it is correct. Thus the passsword is not exposed to over the air intercept and dictionary attack. It IS open to MR attack if I does not have PKr from a source other than R1. I don't see an EMT in a hurry entering a 128bit HIT or 160bit PKr to get access to a pacemaker... From samu.varjonen@hiit.fi Wed Jun 16 03:16:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C3D3A6B15 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q+hzS-gaDnYM for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.otaverkko.fi [212.68.0.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0B53A6A3B for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.25.207] (vallila-gw.hupnet.helsinki.fi [128.214.20.122]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD5425ED25 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:16:02 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C18A462.40206@hiit.fi> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:16:02 +0300 From: Samu Varjonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 16 Jun 2010 10:16:02 -0000 Hi, Here is the preversion of the draft-ietf-hip-cert-04 http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre02.txt Changes from the previous version: - Addition of the non-HIP aware use case - changed wording in the introduction - changed the LDAP URL to DN as it should be in the end of section 2 - changed "may be covered by HIP signature" to "is covered" as RFC 5201 says "Parameters numbered between 0-1023 are used in HIP handshake and update procedures and are covered by signatures" Comments are appreciated... BR, Samu Varjonen From rene.hummen@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Wed Jun 16 11:02:12 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A23B3A6821 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4taOPaB0u3VP for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E9E3A687C for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L44000EKCRR81G0@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:02:15 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,427,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="61697521" Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:02:15 +0200 Received: from [192.168.2.103] ([unknown] [80.137.228.119]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L44003I1CRQLC50@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:02:15 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Hummen?= Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:02:14 +0200 Message-id: <5F990486-81C7-42BB-B1DE-B3A0AFFA1E17@cs.rwth-aachen.de> To: HIP WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Subject: [Hipsec] HIPL now hosted at launchpad.net X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 16 Jun 2010 18:02:12 -0000 [Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this e-mail.] Hello everybody, we would like to inform you that the HIPL project has just transitioned = to the external code/project hosting platform launchpad.net. This step = reflects the joint development efforts of the Helsinki Institute for = Information Technology (HIIT), Aalto University and the Distributed = Systems Group located at RWTH Aachen. Another aspect to the transition = is our belief that hosting the project at a more visible portal will = result in higher contributions from the open source community. The current development focus will be the stabilization of the HIPL = feature-set and the functional hardening of the existing daemon = programs. Our goal is to reach a stable HIP implementation with core = features (e.g. BEX and other mandatory features in RFC5201) and to = maintain extensions (e.g. mobility and multi-homing) as separate code = modules, in order to provide a robust basis for further extensions. What has changed technically? (1) The project's source browser, bugtracker and FAQ will now be hosted = at http://launchpad.net/hipl (2) There is a new IRC channel for real-time discussion: #hipl at = chat.freenode.net (3) The source code can be retrieved (also as an unregistered user) by = running: bzr co lp:hipl (4) External code modifications can be registered in launchpad.net and = proposed to be merge to HIPL. What stays unchanged? (1) Mailinglists (hipl-dev and hipl-users) will not be affected by this = change. (2) The project's webpage (http://infrahip.hiit.fi) including the manual = will stay the same. We hope this step will further increase the interest in HIPL and HIP = itself by exposing both to a public portal. Thanks, Ren=E9 Hummen -- Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 20772 web: http://ds.rwth-aachen.de/members/hummen From andrewmcgr@gmail.com Tue Jun 8 23:56:51 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA6F3A68EB for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:56:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0YIz9JPDi1oY for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5584C3A6868 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pwi8 with SMTP id 8so2732964pwi.31 for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:56:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=g6YwkbLhCZxSsMxWiPCwgbBq9SLrNImSSFYy0K5oKpo=; b=liAe48v6qVsUkOfheiuqsvfl/gTtkSWvjaOyIP/5Xy+tyQG+cGK/1v42Qv5ZReE//a Lunw8ICkVKsd8YJD01LYS8+WWnwzLjhBBGZyekxJO46RTQjnOp1vDZd7cMkjth9ezDf1 N/L7Yr/g63u4PhilaXgQ3wIr5EePaEJbVU7qA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=w8xvfWYe+kANZjEZ5qIVyR9Y/pPiV7RQrGQGzKO8ebj25xm0JGT9I4G3jYfcYBa+8m mLLxWsGDJ9PIf89yYocPA+jekqQqhxCpKR7C0p/Vbn8TyqbTOtO6CQ18bFbNBkvDZKvP eJYb9bJnEaOsHxE1FUDI3cCxMStq8FB+1u0PI= Received: by 10.115.64.20 with SMTP id r20mr13879721wak.205.1276066607986; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (121-72-135-117.dsl.telstraclear.net [121.72.135.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d20sm60516991waa.3.2010.06.08.23.56.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Andrew McGregor In-Reply-To: <4C0F31CA.6040101@cs.hut.fi> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:56:40 +1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4C0E9CBD.20600@htt-consult.com> <4C0F31CA.6040101@cs.hut.fi> To: Miika Komu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Hipsec] How much for that hash? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 09 Jun 2010 06:56:51 -0000 There's a big table of sizes of different crypto algorithms with many = different optimisations here: = http://www.das-labor.org/wiki/AVR-Crypto-Lib/en The target processor is AVR, commonly used for these embedded systems. Andrew On 09/06/2010, at 6:16 PM, Miika Komu wrote: > On 08/06/10 22:40, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 >> It is really being driven home to me how important a cryptographic = hash >> is to a total security solution. Trying to design around this is = really >> hard! >>=20 >> So since the argument for not using a hash is the code cost, can = anyone >> supply me with a good value for the amount of code (in Kb) for SHA-1? >> For SHA-256? >=20 > good point. I am not sure if this was a rhetorical question but = replying nevertheless :) For example, the the SHA1 code in RFC4634 = consists of total 700 hundreds lines of code, including the header file, = or 332 physical lines of code (sloccount). > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >=20 From kivinen@iki.fi Wed Jun 9 04:50:15 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B053A6972 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 04:50:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DTDHlqYYGLIF for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 04:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4713A68E7 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 04:50:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o59Bo2Zj018128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:50:02 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.3/8.12.11) id o59Bo1V0002806; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:50:01 +0300 (EEST) X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to kivinen@iki.fi using -f MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19471.32745.911822.490184@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:50:01 +0300 From: Tero Kivinen To: Robert Moskowitz In-Reply-To: <4C0E9CBD.20600@htt-consult.com> References: <4C0E9CBD.20600@htt-consult.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 X-Edit-Time: 14 min X-Total-Time: 79 min X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700 Cc: HIP WG Subject: [Hipsec] How much for that hash? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 09 Jun 2010 11:50:15 -0000 Robert Moskowitz writes: > It is really being driven home to me how important a cryptographic hash > is to a total security solution. Trying to design around this is really > hard! > > So since the argument for not using a hash is the code cost, can anyone > supply me with a good value for the amount of code (in Kb) for SHA-1? > For SHA-256? Checking our crypto library the sha1 is from 1331 bytes to 8471 bytes depending how much the round functions are unrolled. Sha256 function is 2869 bytes of object code. These are c-source compiled with gcc -Os on i386 architecture and only using memcpy and memset from external libraries. The interface is normal higher level interface meaning reset_context, update, final taking variable length of data in. If using assembler optimizations would most likely make those even smaller, especially if the cpu has round function instructions or similar crypto-optimized instructions, so I would assume it would be possible to make those even smaller. If you do not need to worry about getting partial blocks to update or padding for the final data etc then that would also remove some code (few hundred bytes). -- kivinen@iki.fi From bertietf@bwijnen.net Fri Jun 11 07:04:52 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809263A69F2; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:04:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WUj7fnwCeaeg; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:1342]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF693A69FA; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.1.103]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ON4qh-0002p8-3w; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:04:49 +0200 Received: from vifa-1.office-lb-1.ripe.net ([193.0.1.5] helo=BWMACBOOK.local) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ON4qg-0006mG-V8; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:04:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4C12427A.6010509@bwijnen.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:04:42 +0200 From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com, Ari.Keranen@ericsson.com References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd4911f793a62bd16c292567247edd5283a X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd4911f793a62bd16c292567247edd5283a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700 Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, Ron Bonica Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 2010-06-11 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 11 Jun 2010 14:04:52 -0000 Hi, I have reviewed this document As a member of the Operations Directorate. Specifically we look at operational and management aspects. Not that I am not on the HPI wg mailing list. The document describes 2 extensions to the HIP protocol and adds one notification. I think the document is clear in terms of protocol spec. W.r.t. if/how/when to use these extensions it states: 3. Protocol Definitions The multi-hop routing extensions may be used in different contexts and whether a new HIP packet should, for example, include a Via list or have different options enabled, can depend on the particular use case, local policies, and different protocols using the extension. This section defines how the new parameters are handled, but when to use these extensions is out of scope for this document. So it leaves that up to another document. Is there such a document? Such would be (in my view) operational aspects. But they are claimed to be out of scope. I leave it up to our OPS ADs to decide if that is problematic or not. Bert Wijnen Tina TSOU wrote: > Hello, > As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being asked to review > the following draft which is in IETF last call for it's operational > impact. > IETF Last Call: > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-via-01.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=19355&rfc_flag=0 > > > Please provide comments and review to the Ops-dir mailing list > (ops-dir@ietf.org) before 2010-06-11, and include the authors of the > draft as well. > For a list of questions to be answered in an OPS-DIR review see Appendix A > in RFC 5706. Note that not all questions may apply to all documents, and > some other items may be identified by the OPS-DIR reviews. > The status of Operations Directorate Review could be found > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Directorates > or > http://merlot.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/opsdir/index.cgi/t=4904/welcome > You could update the wiki page when you finish the review. > Thank you, > Tina > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html From david.black@emc.com Fri Jun 11 20:23:35 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CED93A6824; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nyA87NFzzPs1; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEBA3A6818; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id o5C3NW8g015838 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:23:32 -0400 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (numailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.16]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:23:26 -0400 Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.169.196]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id o5C3NETK021494; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:23:25 -0400 Received: from CORPUSMX80B.corp.emc.com ([10.254.89.203]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:22:15 -0400 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:22:15 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 Thread-Index: AcsJ3nRxGN9d935aT8SA5gXfFe4dCw== From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2010 03:22:15.0780 (UTC) FILETIME=[74D69240:01CB09DE] X-EMM-EM: Active X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, Black_David@emc.com, ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 12 Jun 2010 03:23:35 -0000 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on = Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at = http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq .=20 Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may = receive. Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should = be fixed before publication. This draft describes the addition of source routing and route tracing to = HIP. It is proposed for Experimental status, which seems appropriate, = especially for source routing. The draft's in good shape - idnits 2.12.04 found a few minor nits: =3D=3D You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License = Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) -> Copy the correct boilerplate. =3D=3D Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-hip-bone-04 =3D=3D Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-07 -> These are only worth updating if a new version of the draft is needed = for other reasons. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA=A0 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FAX: +1 (508) = 293-7786 black_david@emc.com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- From ari.keranen@ericsson.com Tue Jun 15 00:16:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C743A6A2F; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:16:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qZiZk8KLF-VS; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433A93A6A2D; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:16:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b80ae000001aa1-7d-4c1728b6b703 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 36.4C.06817.6B8271C4; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:16:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:16:05 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:16:05 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF5325A8; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:16:04 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C1728B4.5030006@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:16:04 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ari_Ker=E4nen?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "david.black@emc.com" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2010 07:16:05.0287 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E50B370:01CB0C5A] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700 Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" , "hipsec@ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" , Gonzalo Camarillo , "rdroms.ietf@gmail.com" , "Black_David@emc.com" Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 15 Jun 2010 07:16:06 -0000 Hi David, On 06/12/2010 06:22 AM, david.black@emc.com wrote: > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > This draft describes the addition of source routing and route tracing > to HIP. It is proposed for Experimental status, which seems > appropriate, especially for source routing. > > The draft's in good shape - idnits 2.12.04 found a few minor nits: > > == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice > from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See > http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) > > -> Copy the correct boilerplate. > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of > draft-ietf-hip-bone-04 > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of > draft-ietf-p2psip-base-07 > > -> These are only worth updating if a new version of the draft is > needed for other reasons. Thanks for the review! All these nits should be fixed when we run the draft through the xml2rfc next time. Cheers, Ari From ari.keranen@ericsson.com Tue Jun 15 00:30:17 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F7E3A686E; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:30:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.905 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.095, BAYES_05=-1.11, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T1ZZaQvVjMQ3; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662513A67A5; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:30:08 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b80ae000001aa1-dd-4c172bf4af40 Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 60.1F.06817.4FB271C4; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:29:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:29:55 +0200 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:29:55 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D6A25A8; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:29:55 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C172BF2.20500@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:29:54 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ari_Ker=E4nen?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" References: <4C12427A.6010509@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: <4C12427A.6010509@bwijnen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2010 07:29:55.0761 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D50FA10:01CB0C5C] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700 Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" , "hipsec@ietf.org" , Gonzalo Camarillo , Ron Bonica Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 2010-06-11 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 15 Jun 2010 07:30:17 -0000 Hi Bert, Thanks for the review! Comments inline. On 06/11/2010 05:04 PM, Bert (IETF) Wijnen wrote: > The document describes 2 extensions to the HIP protocol and adds > one notification. I think the document is clear in terms of protocol spec. > W.r.t. if/how/when to use these extensions it states: > > 3. Protocol Definitions > > The multi-hop routing extensions may be used in different contexts > and whether a new HIP packet should, for example, include a Via list > or have different options enabled, can depend on the particular use > case, local policies, and different protocols using the extension. > This section defines how the new parameters are handled, but when to > use these extensions is out of scope for this document. > > So it leaves that up to another document. Is there such a document? > Such would be (in my view) operational aspects. But they are claimed > to be out of scope. I leave it up to our OPS ADs to decide if that > is problematic or not. There is currently one draft (draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-01) that uses this extension and defines in which cases the extension should be used. We believe that the Via extension can be useful in many contexts and therefore did not want to restrict its use cases too much but rather let the drafts using the extension define when and how to use the extension. Cheers, Ari From bertietf@bwijnen.net Tue Jun 15 01:12:17 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC863A6A35; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:12:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.214 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sDywzs7oe7Nz; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.versatel.net (relay60.tele2.vuurwerk.nl [62.250.3.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29C73A6883; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [87.215.199.34] (helo=BertLaptop) by relay.versatel.net with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OORFp-0004uC-K9; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:12:17 +0200 Message-ID: <08056BCA140F482D8C1FBBB7FDBDC256@BertLaptop> From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ari_Ker=E4nen?= References: <4C12427A.6010509@bwijnen.net> <4C172BF2.20500@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4C172BF2.20500@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:11:39 +0200 Organization: Consultant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18197 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:20 -0700 Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, Gonzalo Camarillo , Ron Bonica Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 2010-06-11 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 15 Jun 2010 08:12:17 -0000 Thanks for your answer. I leave it up to the OPS ADs to decide if this is acceptable. Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ari Keränen" To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" Cc: "Gonzalo Camarillo" ; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" ; "Ron Bonica" ; ; Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:29 AM Subject: Re: Operations Directorate Review of draft-ietf-hip-via-01 by 2010-06-11 Hi Bert, Thanks for the review! Comments inline. On 06/11/2010 05:04 PM, Bert (IETF) Wijnen wrote: > The document describes 2 extensions to the HIP protocol and adds > one notification. I think the document is clear in terms of protocol spec. > W.r.t. if/how/when to use these extensions it states: > > 3. Protocol Definitions > > The multi-hop routing extensions may be used in different contexts > and whether a new HIP packet should, for example, include a Via list > or have different options enabled, can depend on the particular use > case, local policies, and different protocols using the extension. > This section defines how the new parameters are handled, but when to > use these extensions is out of scope for this document. > > So it leaves that up to another document. Is there such a document? > Such would be (in my view) operational aspects. But they are claimed > to be out of scope. I leave it up to our OPS ADs to decide if that > is problematic or not. There is currently one draft (draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-01) that uses this extension and defines in which cases the extension should be used. We believe that the Via extension can be useful in many contexts and therefore did not want to restrict its use cases too much but rather let the drafts using the extension define when and how to use the extension. Cheers, Ari From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Thu Jun 17 07:01:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9CD3A68C1 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:01:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fuOPY+IrL+6a for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53883A68A9 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8EF4E6E0 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:00:59 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHwU0zEO685L for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:00:58 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399C34E6DE for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:00:58 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C1A2A9A.8010703@nomadiclab.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:00:58 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] Missing HIP control flags registry? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 17 Jun 2010 14:01:01 -0000 Hi all, It seems that there is no IANA registry for the HIP control flags [1] or even policy defined how to reserve them. Is this correct? That could be something to fix in the bis version. Cheers, Ari [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5201#section-5.1.2 From rgm@htt-consult.com Thu Jun 17 07:29:42 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5934F3A68EE for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.99 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.609, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r6GRuPv0re2J for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760343A687F for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B44968B49; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rZOFpCKFqQX; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:21:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0092968B41; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C1A314D.80401@htt-consult.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:29:33 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ari Keranen References: <4C1A2A9A.8010703@nomadiclab.com> In-Reply-To: <4C1A2A9A.8010703@nomadiclab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Missing HIP control flags registry? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:42 -0000 On 06/17/2010 10:00 AM, Ari Keranen wrote: > Hi all, > > It seems that there is no IANA registry for the HIP control flags [1] > or even policy defined how to reserve them. Is this correct? That > could be something to fix in the bis version. Tobias and I were discussing Control flags yesterday that should bring some focus to this. Good catch, Ari. > > > Cheers, > Ari > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5201#section-5.1.2 > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From david.mattes@boeing.com Thu Jun 17 09:39:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCB73A67B3 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNjEo4tMsvgy for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE153A68F5 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id o5HGdgEL019405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o5HGdfXx014994; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-03.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.71.23]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o5HGdfJg014986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-11V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.84]) by XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.71.23]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:42 -0700 From: "Mattes, David" To: Samu Varjonen , HIP Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:39:39 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01 Thread-Index: AcsNPPKumRC0bImDRvmWLQcXHI5/dQA/qwaA Message-ID: References: <4C18A462.40206@hiit.fi> In-Reply-To: <4C18A462.40206@hiit.fi> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 17 Jun 2010 16:39:57 -0000 Hi Samu, Thank you for updating the draft. Here are a few nits: Section 2, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: s/Using LDAP DN encoding/Using DN = encoding/ Section 5: missing period after 1st sentence: s/[RFC2693] Revocation/[RFC2= 693]. Revocation/ Section 9, last sentence, repeated word: s/Section Section 3/Section 3/ Regards, David > -----Original Message----- > From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Samu Varjonen > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 3:16 AM > To: HIP > Subject: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Here is the preversion of the draft-ietf-hip-cert-04 >=20 > http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre02.txt >=20 > Changes from the previous version: >=20 > - Addition of the non-HIP aware use case > - changed wording in the introduction > - changed the LDAP URL to DN as it should be in the end of section 2 > - changed "may be covered by HIP signature" to "is covered" as RFC 5201 > says "Parameters numbered between 0-1023 are used in HIP > handshake and update procedures and are covered by signatures" >=20 > Comments are appreciated... >=20 > BR, > Samu Varjonen > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Fri Jun 18 05:08:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89A53A688B for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:08:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtKp8wlqox5B for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (n2.nomadiclab.com [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62A83A6359 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81964E6DC; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:08:53 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Cgk9E1Nd4Ks; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:08:53 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2E14E6DA; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:08:52 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C1B61D4.3060302@nomadiclab.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:08:52 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Moskowitz References: <4C1A2A9A.8010703@nomadiclab.com> <4C1A314D.80401@htt-consult.com> In-Reply-To: <4C1A314D.80401@htt-consult.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Missing HIP control flags registry? X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 18 Jun 2010 12:08:50 -0000 On 06/17/2010 05:29 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > On 06/17/2010 10:00 AM, Ari Keranen wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> It seems that there is no IANA registry for the HIP control flags [1] >> or even policy defined how to reserve them. Is this correct? That >> could be something to fix in the bis version. > > Tobias and I were discussing Control flags yesterday that should bring > some focus to this. OK, good. > Good catch, Ari. Thanks, although actually Jari spotted a similar flaw in the HIP VIA draft and that led me looking for how it was done in the main drafts. Cheers, Ari From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Fri Jun 18 05:20:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D225D3A63CA for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:20:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.866 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.867, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jxGj8-7lwyuH for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175523A6A6E for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B699E4E6DC; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:20:43 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5LoJQeiiPMqr; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:20:43 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD074E6DA; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:20:43 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C1B649B.6040907@nomadiclab.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:20:43 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Heer References: <4C0F28D0.1080002@nomadiclab.com> <5B25778E-C574-4400-9B3B-A808BF343397@cs.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <5B25778E-C574-4400-9B3B-A808BF343397@cs.rwth-aachen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: HIP WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Conflicting text in RFC5201 - RFC5201-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 18 Jun 2010 12:20:50 -0000 Hi Tobias, On 06/09/2010 02:01 PM, Tobias Heer wrote: > Hello Ari, > > Am 09.06.2010 um 07:38 schrieb Ari Keranen: > >> Hi, >> >> On 05/26/2010 01:37 PM, Tobias Heer wrote: >>> I have a question regarding some text in RFC5201 that conflicts >>> with the crypto agility that we envisioned. The new BEX will >>> have to start the negotiations of the DH groups already in I1 to >>> allow the Responder to pick a sensible DH group (there are simple >>> countermeasures against downgrade attacks, too, so don't worry). >>> Therefore, the I1 becomes slightly more important than it was >>> (although it stays unsigned and cheap). In Section 4.1 RFC5201 >>> states: ... 705 The Initiator first sends a trigger >>> packet, I1, to the 706 Responder. The packet contains >>> the HIT of the Initiator 707 and possibly the HIT of the >>> Responder, if it is known. 708 Moreover, it contains a >>> list of Diffie Hellman Group IDs 709 supported by the >>> Initiator. Note 710 that in some cases it may be possible to >>> replace this trigger 711 packet by some other form of a trigger, >>> in which case the 712 protocol starts with the Responder sending >>> the R1 packet. ... With the DH group negotiations already >>> starting in I1 it becomes difficult to omit the I1 (you can do it >>> but you lose DH crypto agility). Moreover, I doubt that omitting >>> the I1 works well even without considering the DH group >>> negotiations because some of the measures to keep the Responder >>> stateless until I2 rely on having information from the I1 (IP >>> address or HIT) for the puzzle/ opaque data field. My questions >>> are: Is anyone using or does anyone intent to use this omission >>> of the I1? Is there any specification on how to do it (at least >>> this is the only place in 5201 where it is mentioned). Do we need >>> this feature because there are cases where you cannot send an I1? >>> And finally: can we live without that note? >> In HIP BONE we have thought about using this feature for DoS >> protection (and perhaps also for making the BeX via overlay >> faster): >> >> 3.3.1. DoS Protection [...] In an overlay scenario, there are >> multiple ways how this mechanism can be utilized within the >> overlay. One possibility is to cache the pre-generated R1 packets >> within the overlay and let the overlay directly respond with R1s to >> I1s. In that way the responder is not bothered at all until the >> initiator sends an I2 packet, with the puzzle solution. >> Furthermore, a more sophisticated overlay could verify that an I2 >> packet has a correctly solved puzzle before forwarding the packet >> to the responder. >> >> I think this is a useful feature, but since it's more of an >> optimization than something we rely on, if needed, we should be >> able to live without it too. >> >> > have you considered René's proposal regarding the use of an I1-less > BEX? The procedure of opportunistically responding with any DH group > or a way of telling the preferred DH groups in a DHT packet could be > options, right? The overlays using HIP BONE are likely to need other common configuration information anyway (at least RELOAD instance does), so adding the preferred/default DH group(s) there should not be a problem. Also, the nodes that cached an R1 can notice that the cached version is from a wrong group (right?), and therefore not use the cached version but rather forward the I1 to the end host. Cheers, Ari From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Mon Jun 21 01:04:00 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46C63A6A3B for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:04:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.325, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W+H-qAwTJzZC for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:03:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE823A6A35 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:03:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L4C001RTUEPBD20@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:04:01 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,452,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="62165716" Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:04:00 +0200 Received: from umic-i4-137-226-45-90.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.45.90]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L4C000XXUEP6B00@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:04:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <4C1B649B.6040907@nomadiclab.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:04:01 +0200 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: References: <4C0F28D0.1080002@nomadiclab.com> <5B25778E-C574-4400-9B3B-A808BF343397@cs.rwth-aachen.de> <4C1B649B.6040907@nomadiclab.com> To: HIP WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Conflicting text in RFC5201 - RFC5201-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 21 Jun 2010 08:04:01 -0000 Hi Ari,=20 Am 18.06.2010 um 14:20 schrieb Ari Keranen: > Hi Tobias, >=20 > On 06/09/2010 02:01 PM, Tobias Heer wrote: >> Hello Ari, >> Am 09.06.2010 um 07:38 schrieb Ari Keranen: >>> Hi, >>>>=20 [...] >>> I think this is a useful feature, but since it's more of an >>> optimization than something we rely on, if needed, we should be >>> able to live without it too. >> have you considered Ren=E9's proposal regarding the use of an I1-less >> BEX? The procedure of opportunistically responding with any DH group >> or a way of telling the preferred DH groups in a DHT packet could be >> options, right? >=20 > The overlays using HIP BONE are likely to need other common = configuration information anyway (at least RELOAD instance does), so = adding the preferred/default DH group(s) there should not be a problem. Okay. > Also, the nodes that cached an R1 can notice that the cached version = is from a wrong group (right?), and therefore not use the cached version = but rather forward the I1 to the end host. Yes, that makes sense.=20 I'll change the text in RFC5201-bis if there are no further objections = on the list. Tobias --=20 Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group=20 RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Jun 22 04:45:07 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietf.org Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 7D8A23A693A; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100622114505.7D8A23A693A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 22 Jun 2010 11:45:07 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : HIP BONE: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Based Overlay Networking Environment Author(s) : G. Camarillo, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2010-06-22 This document specifies a framework to build HIP (Host Identity Protocol)-based overlay networks. This framework uses HIP to perform connection management. Other functions, such as data storage and retrieval or overlay maintenance, are implemented using protocols other than HIP. These protocols are loosely referred to as peer protocols. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-06-22043417.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Jun 22 04:45:08 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietf.org Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 704DB3A69C9; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100622114507.704DB3A69C9@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hip-via-02.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 22 Jun 2010 11:45:08 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Multi-hop Routing Extension Author(s) : G. Camarillo, A. Keranen Filename : draft-ietf-hip-via-02.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2010-06-22 This document specifies two extensions to HIP to implement multi-hop routing. The first extension allows implementing source routing in HIP. That is, a node sending a HIP packet can define a set of nodes that the HIP packet should traverse. The second extension allows a HIP packet to carry and record the list of nodes that forwarded it. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-via-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-hip-via-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-06-22043600.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Tue Jun 22 05:06:15 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742DF3A67B7 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:06:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TEi3OZv5jdRp for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2BE3A676A for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C2B4E6CF for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:06:20 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GEaQkeimb1uS for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:06:19 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9CC4E6C8 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:06:19 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C20A73B.2080906@nomadiclab.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:06:19 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <20100622114505.7D8A23A693A@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20100622114505.7D8A23A693A@core3.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 22 Jun 2010 12:06:15 -0000 Hi all, FYI, this version contains fixes to IESG, Gen-ART, etc. LC reviews. Most notably: - Added "HIP association" and "Final recipient" to the terminology section - Instead of suggesting "at least 32 bits of randomness" for the Overlay ID, recommending using "any other means possible for preventing collisions" (comment was that 32 bits may give false feeling of safety against collisions). - Fixed conflicting requirements for the Overlay TTL parameter to be understood by the final recipient. Cheers, Ari On 06/22/2010 02:45 PM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : HIP BONE: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Based Overlay Networking Environment > Author(s) : G. Camarillo, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2010-06-22 > > This document specifies a framework to build HIP (Host Identity > Protocol)-based overlay networks. This framework uses HIP to perform > connection management. Other functions, such as data storage and > retrieval or overlay maintenance, are implemented using protocols > other than HIP. These protocols are loosely referred to as peer > protocols. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Tue Jun 22 05:07:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420453A67CC for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxiQa4z8U3Ml for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB5C3A67B7 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3C34E6CF for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:07:53 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8JctHpVpXpZU for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:07:53 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A9B4E6C8 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:07:53 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C20A799.5080001@nomadiclab.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:07:53 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <20100622114507.704DB3A69C9@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20100622114507.704DB3A69C9@core3.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hip-via-02.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 22 Jun 2010 12:07:48 -0000 Hi all, FYI, this version contains fixes to IESG, Gen-ART, etc. LC reviews. Most notably: - Added 'Fragmentation Considerations' section - Added more security considerations - Added ROUTE_{VIA,DST} flags to IANA section - Changed all 'hosts' to 'nodes' in the text - Clarified the behavior with ROUTE_DST parameter and MUST_FOLLOW flag - Clarified that the draft is about HIP *signaling* packets - Clarified difference between 'receiver' and 'final recipient' Cheers, Ari On 06/22/2010 02:45 PM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Multi-hop Routing Extension > Author(s) : G. Camarillo, A. Keranen > Filename : draft-ietf-hip-via-02.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2010-06-22 > > This document specifies two extensions to HIP to implement multi-hop > routing. The first extension allows implementing source routing in > HIP. That is, a node sending a HIP packet can define a set of nodes > that the HIP packet should traverse. The second extension allows a > HIP packet to carry and record the list of nodes that forwarded it. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-via-02.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. From rgm@htt-consult.com Wed Jun 23 05:16:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190053A69BB for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.257 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5Y1lr0K1X+L for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B6F3A69F2 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD2B68B25 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZDxoDizke7s for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E36C68B20 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C21FADF.4080305@htt-consult.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:15:27 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020602060505030409010705" Subject: [Hipsec] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 23 Jun 2010 12:16:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020602060505030409010705 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070203020505040806080309" --------------070203020505040806080309 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HIP is now specifically called out in the draft. Please review, as this draft will probably go into IETF last call. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:00:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service Author(s) : J. Woodyatt Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2010-06-22 This document identifies a set of recommendations for the makers of devices describing how to provide for "simple security" capabilities at the perimeter of local-area IPv6 networks in Internet-enabled homes and small offices. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --------------070203020505040806080309 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HIP is now specifically called out in the draft.

Please review, as this draft will probably go into IETF last call.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org 


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.


	Title           : Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service
	Author(s)       : J. Woodyatt
	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2010-06-22

This document identifies a set of recommendations for the makers of
devices describing how to provide for "simple security" capabilities
at the perimeter of local-area IPv6 networks in Internet-enabled
homes and small offices.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
--------------070203020505040806080309-- --------------020602060505030409010705 Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-06-22165210.I-D@ietf.org> --------------020602060505030409010705-- From rgm@htt-consult.com Wed Jun 23 12:20:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6790D3A6B06 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:20:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlHxr1ZAvkBY for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CB73A6B09 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA5468B57 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:13:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBAomNZsBwTl for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8BC368B51 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C225E8D.6030906@htt-consult.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:20:45 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] HIP DEX Aggresive Transmission Mechanism X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 23 Jun 2010 19:20:53 -0000 HIP BEX has been observed to behave poorly (or so I am told) on networks with packet loss. HIP DEX will be used on networks with high packet loss, and MUST perform well. So I have developed an Aggresive Transmission Mechanism for DEX. Think if you want this added to 5201-bis. Here is the text from the DEX ID: HIP DEX may be used on networks with high packet loss. DEX deals with this by using an aggressive transmission practice for I1 and I2 packets. The Initiator SHOULD continually send I1 and I2 packets at some short interval t msec, based on local policy. The transmission stops on receipt of the corresponding R1 or R2 packet, which acts as an acknowledgment receipt. Since the Responder is stateless until it receives an I2, it does not need any special behaviour on sending R1 other than to send one whenever it receives an I1. The Responder sends an R2 after receipt every I2. The Responder does need to know that R2 was received by the Initiator. It can learn this by NOT receiving any I2 packets after sending R2 after waiting the interval t msec that was in I2. The Initator SHOULD NOT send any datagrams for the interval t msec after receipt of R2 to ensure that the Responder has transitioned to the ESTABLISHED state. ========================================= Comments, of course, are welcome and invited. From rgm@htt-consult.com Wed Jun 23 12:55:38 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8DB3A69C5 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:55:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nBqj5tSP3NvI for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B814A3A683F for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E101F68B54 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:47:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AdGMQhbF5FC6 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8031E68B41 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C2266B4.6050706@htt-consult.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:55:32 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <4C225E8D.6030906@htt-consult.com> In-Reply-To: <4C225E8D.6030906@htt-consult.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Hipsec] HIP DEX Aggresive Transmission Mechanism X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 23 Jun 2010 19:55:38 -0000 hmmm. On further study of the HIP BEX state machine, one slight change... On 06/23/2010 03:20 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > HIP BEX has been observed to behave poorly (or so I am told) on > networks with packet loss. > > HIP DEX will be used on networks with high packet loss, and MUST > perform well. So I have developed an Aggresive Transmission Mechanism > for DEX. Think if you want this added to 5201-bis. > > Here is the text from the DEX ID: > > HIP DEX may be used on networks with high packet loss. DEX deals > with this by using an aggressive transmission practice for I1 and I2 > packets. The Initiator SHOULD continually send I1 and I2 packets at > some short interval t msec, based on local policy. The transmission > stops on receipt of the corresponding R1 or R2 packet, which acts as > an acknowledgment receipt. > > Since the Responder is stateless until it receives an I2, it does not > need any special behaviour on sending R1 other than to send one > whenever it receives an I1. The Responder sends an R2 after receipt > every I2. The Responder does need to know that R2 was received > by the Initiator. It can learn this by NOT receiving any I2 packets > after sending R2 after waiting the interval t msec that was in I2. BEX learns this when R starts receiving data. That should also work for DEX. One less change. > > The Initator SHOULD NOT send any datagrams for the interval t msec > after receipt of R2 to ensure that the Responder has transitioned to > the ESTABLISHED state. > > ========================================= > > Comments, of course, are welcome and invited. > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Thu Jun 24 01:28:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09113A6A1C for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.236 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.496, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y7P8SkaL+cfJ for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEA73A680B for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE47D4E6CF; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:28:53 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ay-w+cUCk3qj; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:28:52 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04264E6C8; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:28:52 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C231744.3010204@nomadiclab.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:28:52 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samu Varjonen References: <4C18A462.40206@hiit.fi> In-Reply-To: <4C18A462.40206@hiit.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 24 Jun 2010 08:28:54 -0000 Hi Samu, On 06/16/2010 01:16 PM, Samu Varjonen wrote: > Here is the preversion of the draft-ietf-hip-cert-04 > http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre02.txt Great! Looking forward seeing this work finalized. [...] > Comments are appreciated... Some comments: The document would benefit from using more normative language, i.e., capitalizing the relevant shoulds/musts/mays and thinking once more through which form is appropriate. 2. CERT Parameter The CERT parameter is covered by the HIP SIGNATURE field and is a non-critical parameter. This is better than the previous version, but I'd suggest adding "(where present)" after "is covered" to point out that in I1 it would not be covered by a signature. Cert groups may only span multiple packets if the Cert group does not fit the packet. What packet size limit should one use for determining this? Next hop MTU, PMTUD, or something? | URL of X.509.v3 | 3 | | URL of SPKI | 4 | | Hash of X.509.v3 | 5 | | Hash of SPKI | 6 | [...] Hash and URL encodings (3 to 6) are used as defined in [RFC4306]. I'd recommend adding the corresponding section number(s) to the reference since the IKEv2 spec is quite a long one. And if I understand RFC4306 correctly, you should not have separate "Hash" and "URL" encodings, but just "Hash and URL" that contains concatenation of the hash and URL. 7. IANA Considerations Should the certificate types have their own registry? Cheers, Ari From rgm@htt-consult.com Fri Jun 25 14:00:40 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960833A698E for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.101, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GU7U28lK6T2W for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10D43A6926 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040E868B9A for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9dfqdZjIs43n for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10C5B68B7B for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C2518F3.2070706@htt-consult.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:00:35 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 25 Jun 2010 21:00:40 -0000 I am considering speaking out about a process to move Experimental protocols to Standards. My thoughts is that RFC 2026 makes no statement to an Experiment completeing successfully and then moving to Standards. Any thoughts? Or just leave well enough alone.... From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tue Jun 29 00:48:59 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA353A6983 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:48:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.260, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VOx8KV4I7OfS for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.73]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742A83A6985 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:48:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L4R008L1N1UN770@mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:49:06 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,503,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="63196461" Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:49:06 +0200 Received: from umic-i4-137-226-45-90.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.45.90]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L4R00LSDN1UER20@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:49:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:49:05 +0200 Message-id: To: HIP WG , hiprg@irtf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Subject: [Hipsec] Document crafting meeting RFC5201-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jun 2010 07:48:59 -0000 Hi everyone, as discussed on the list, we would like to have a document discussion and crafting meeting for RFC5201-bis during the IETF in Maastricht. The goal of this crafting session is to discuss the specific changes in detail and to identify areas that need further work. I would be happy to welcome as many of you as possible. I set up a doodle link in order to find a suitable time slot. Please mark as many slots as possible to make it easy/suitable to find a slot that works for most of you. http://www.doodle.com/gbsrevygvm968ddz Please indicate your preferences until July, 10th, so that we can fix a place and make the necessary arrangements. Keep in mind that the HIP RG is scheduled for: Tu 9:00-11:30 A new version of 5201-bis and the corresponding changelog will be available soon. BR, Tobias -- Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Jun 29 01:15:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietf.org Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 3F12C3A6AA8; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:15:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100629081505.3F12C3A6AA8@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hip-via-03.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jun 2010 08:15:06 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Multi-hop Routing Extension Author(s) : G. Camarillo, A. Keranen Filename : draft-ietf-hip-via-03.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2010-06-29 This document specifies two extensions to HIP to implement multi-hop routing. The first extension allows implementing source routing in HIP. That is, a node sending a HIP packet can define a set of nodes that the HIP packet should traverse. The second extension allows a HIP packet to carry and record the list of nodes that forwarded it. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-via-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-hip-via-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-06-29011034.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From rgm@htt-consult.com Tue Jun 29 02:38:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C70B3A67E2 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.309 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.310, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VCaYcCXeK+LC for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56D23A67B8 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD59568B5E; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eXHCUN09NdTu; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 600EF68B67; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C29BF29.3060900@htt-consult.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:38:49 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Heer References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP WG , hiprg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Document crafting meeting RFC5201-bis X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jun 2010 09:38:58 -0000 On 06/29/2010 05:49 AM, Tobias Heer wrote: > Hi everyone, > > as discussed on the list, we would like to have a document discussion and crafting meeting for RFC5201-bis during the IETF in Maastricht. > I STRONGLY recommend that you come with a hardcopy of the draft. It makes flipping and marking much easier. I have done a LOT of this in IEEE 802, and electronically works, but you tend to have 10 copies of the document opened to different pages and flipping screens. When I pay the $$$ to print off the 100 pages, I find I can get through the discussion better. > The goal of this crafting session is to discuss the specific changes in detail and to identify areas that need further work. I would be happy to welcome as many of you as possible. > I set up a doodle link in order to find a suitable time slot. Please mark as many slots as possible to make it easy/suitable to find a slot that works for most of you. > > http://www.doodle.com/gbsrevygvm968ddz > > Please indicate your preferences until July, 10th, so that we can fix a place and make the necessary arrangements. > > Keep in mind that the HIP RG is scheduled for: Tu 9:00-11:30 > > A new version of 5201-bis and the corresponding changelog will be available soon. > > BR, > > Tobias > > > > From rgm@htt-consult.com Tue Jun 29 10:20:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF8E3A6C04 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:20:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.859 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.251, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1DkVoOoC+Qhz for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584303A6A8A for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D6768B5E; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:12:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ofW11GHS+-je; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B697B68A8B; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C2A2B41.4040106@htt-consult.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:20:01 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org, hiprg@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] First HIP DEX draft -- draft-moskowitz-hip-rg-dex-00 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jun 2010 17:20:06 -0000 I have just uploaded the first cut of the ID for HIP DEX. This now gives me until July 12 to post updates based on early reviews. Thus I ask that people give this a read. It DOES require having read 5201. I DON'T think there is anything in DEX that really requires reading 5201-bis (not yet pubished, Tobias is hard at work). Of note are: Section 5 on the new R1, I2, and R2. I1 is how it will be in 5201-bis. How the HIT is formed. The puzzle is changed to use CMAC. KEYMAT using CMAC (pretty much lifted from RFC 5869) One thing to note about DEX is the HI is a static ECDH key. -----Original Message----- From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:07 PM A new version of I-D, draft-moskowitz-hip-rg-dex-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Robert Moskowitz and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-moskowitz-hip-rg-dex Revision: 00 Title: HIP Diet EXchange (DEX) Creation_date: 2010-06-29 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 33 Abstract: This document specifies the details of the Host Identity Protocol Diet EXchange (HIP DEX). HIP DEX is a variant of the HIP Base EXchange (HIP BEX) [RFC5201-bis] specifically designed to use as few crypto primatives as possible yet still deliver the same class of of security features as HIP BEX. The design goal of HIP DEX is to be usable by sensor devices that are code and processor constrained. Like HIP BEX it is expected to be used together with another suitable security protocol, such as the Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP). HIP DEX can also be used directly as a keying mechanism for a MAC layer security protocol as is supported by IEEE 802.15.4 The IETF Secretariat. From samu.varjonen@hiit.fi Wed Jun 30 04:21:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD943A695A for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:21:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W9UwY6f0Q6LW for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.otaverkko.fi [212.68.0.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDDF3A67D0 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.214.113.196] (sutherland.hiit.fi [128.214.113.196]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4464225ED10; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:21:11 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C2B288E.3000703@hiit.fi> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:20:46 +0300 From: Samu Varjonen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ari Keranen References: <4C18A462.40206@hiit.fi> <4C231744.3010204@nomadiclab.com> In-Reply-To: <4C231744.3010204@nomadiclab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 30 Jun 2010 11:21:03 -0000 Hi, Here is the new preversion of the hip-cert with some editorial changes, clean-up, new certificate examples, and so on... http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre02.txt Comments inline... Ari Keranen wrote: > Hi Samu, > > On 06/16/2010 01:16 PM, Samu Varjonen wrote: >> Here is the preversion of the draft-ietf-hip-cert-04 >> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre02.txt > > Great! Looking forward seeing this work finalized. > > [...] >> Comments are appreciated... > > Some comments: > > The document would benefit from using more normative language, i.e., > capitalizing the relevant shoulds/musts/mays and thinking once more > through which form is appropriate. > > > 2. CERT Parameter > > The CERT parameter is covered by the HIP SIGNATURE field and is a > non-critical parameter. > > This is better than the previous version, but I'd suggest adding "(where > present)" after "is covered" to point out that in I1 it would not be > covered by a signature. > OK, changed > Cert groups may only span multiple > packets if the Cert group does not fit the packet. > > What packet size limit should one use for determining this? Next hop > MTU, PMTUD, or something? Have to think a bit more on this. > > | URL of X.509.v3 | 3 | > | URL of SPKI | 4 | > | Hash of X.509.v3 | 5 | > | Hash of SPKI | 6 | > [...] > Hash and URL encodings (3 to 6) are used as defined in [RFC4306]. > > I'd recommend adding the corresponding section number(s) to the > reference since the IKEv2 spec is quite a long one. And if I understand > RFC4306 correctly, you should not have separate "Hash" and "URL" > encodings, but just "Hash and URL" that contains concatenation of the > hash and URL. > Good catch, it was correct in some earlier versions and in some point in editing it has been changed. Reverting it to "Hash and URL" like it is described in RFC 4306 section 3.6 > > 7. IANA Considerations > > Should the certificate types have their own registry? > I would say yes, any other opinions. > > > Cheers, > Ari From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Wed Jun 30 06:14:19 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8971B3A6AC4 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:14:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.504, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2C2xMPCGwZtU for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FE53A6AC8 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FB04E6CF; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:14:26 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZbZMPtplUlsu; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:14:26 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101:21c:23ff:fe45:a6c1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064CB4E6C1; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:14:25 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C2B4331.6040807@nomadiclab.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:14:25 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samu Varjonen References: <4C18A462.40206@hiit.fi> <4C231744.3010204@nomadiclab.com> <4C2B288E.3000703@hiit.fi> In-Reply-To: <4C2B288E.3000703@hiit.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 30 Jun 2010 13:14:19 -0000 Hi, On 06/30/2010 02:20 PM, Samu Varjonen wrote: > Here is the new preversion of the hip-cert with some editorial changes, > clean-up, new certificate examples, and so on... > > http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre02.txt Thanks, looks better now. More comments in line. > Ari Keranen wrote: >> The document would benefit from using more normative language, i.e., >> capitalizing the relevant shoulds/musts/mays and thinking once more >> through which form is appropriate. >> I still found only one capitalized MUST in the whole document (and no MAYs or SHOULDs). Maybe it's just me, but I find a non-informational document lacking RFC 2119 keywords a bit disturbing: it looks like it is all purely informational. Then I realized that the document's current status is indeed Informational. Shouldn't it be experimental? >> 2. CERT Parameter >> >> The CERT parameter is covered by the HIP SIGNATURE field and is a >> non-critical parameter. >> >> This is better than the previous version, but I'd suggest adding >> "(where present)" after "is covered" to point out that in I1 it would >> not be covered by a signature. >> > > OK, changed This is a true nit, but I would have put the "where present" in parenthesis or surrounded it with commas. >> >> 7. IANA Considerations >> >> Should the certificate types have their own registry? >> > > I would say yes, any other opinions. Yes. Cheers, Ari