Subject: [anonsec] request for posts on separate WG vs. merged

From: Julien.Laganier at Sun.COM (Julien Laganier)
Date: Thu Dec 2 01:33:54 2004

[email-masked] wrote:
> One proviso (as I've said earlier) is that I think the basic
> channel binding work should be done in BTNS:
> 	- Format and computation of the bits/bytes for binding
> 	- Principles for binding in higher-layer protocols
> 	- Warnings about things that SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT
> 		be done in higher-layer channel binding
> OTOH, channel binding for specific upper layer protocols belongs
> in the WGs for those protocols (e.g., some combination of KITTEN
> and NFSv4 will need to work this out for NFSv4).

FWIW, what you propose looks to me somewhat similar to what was done
within the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) WG, where the base protocol
draft (draft-itef-hip-base) specifies both:

- Format and computation of a fixed sized identifier (Host Identity Tag)
for use in ULPs, derived from the public key (Host Identity):

                        HIT=SHA1_128(HI)

- These ULPs identifiers (i.e. HITs) SHOULD be used in ULPs
pseudo-headers and checksum computation.

Thanks,

--julien