> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Henderson, Thomas R > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis status > > The new version of RFC5201-bis was just published at: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-08.txt > > This version had the following changes: > > o Removed lingering references to SHA-1 as the mandatory hash > algorithm (which was changed to SHA-256 in the -02 draft > version). > > o For parameter type number changes, changed "IETF Review" to "IETF > Review or IESG Approval". > > o Updated Appendix C checksum examples to conform to HIPv2 packets. > > There remain nine open issues in the tracker for this draft: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/query?component=rfc5201-bis > > I believe that three could be closed immediately as being already done, > and I will plan to do so in a week if there are no comments: > > #18 Selection of 160-bit ECC curve > #26 IESG: Randomize hashing in signatures > #28 IESG: support combined encryption modes > > I believe that two can be closed with some brief list discussion (will > open separate discussion threads): > > #30 Handle interactions with complex SPDs > #32 normative text on when to have Domain Identifier
I have now closed the above issues. We have closed 10 of the 14 issues against RFC5201-bis, and the four below remain. There are no open issues logged against RFC5202-bis. > > #26 Orchid Generation Algorithm (OGA) in ORCHID document (requires > coordination with 4843-bis) This is a matter of coordinating changes that have been made to 5201 into the revised 4843-bis. I will have some time next week to review this and make a proposal. > #29 IESG: Use different RSA mode OAEP/PSS Will open separate thread on this. > #33 reusing DH public values Tobias has proposed text here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/33 Are there any comments or should we adopt the proposed text and close this issue? > #35 Limiting ECC to co-factor of 1 Bob has proposed text here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/35 Are there any comments or should we adopt the proposed text and close this issue? - Tom _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
