Hi Julien, if you could respond to Ari's comments on the 5203bis draft below, that would be great. Also, note that the latest version of this draft has expired.
Thanks, Gonzalo On 27/07/2012 7:22 PM, Ari Keranen wrote: > Hi Julien, > > On 7/6/12 3:37 AM, Julien Laganier wrote: >> - 5203bis (registration) can IMHO be republished as is as I haven't >> seen any issue with the original version. If people agree I could >> republish it and we could WGLC it... > > I posted some comments about 5203bis earlier this year but back then > there was no discussion regarding them. So, here goes again. > > Some of these have been discussed also earlier on this list (these > relate to requirements discovered with the native NAT traversal draft > [1]), but I'll have them all here for easier reference. > > Currently, the registrar has no way of indicating that it would > otherwise accept the registration, but it's currently running low on > resources. For this purpose, a failure type "Insufficient resources" > could be added to the "registration failure types". > > Registration using authentication with certificates could be part of the > registration RFC. Currently, only authentication with HI is defined, but > knowing all HIs beforehand is not practical in many cases. > > Text in section 3.2. of [1] could be used as a basis for this (just > replace "HIP' data relay" with "registrar"). Also, if this > authentication mode is added to the draft, failure type "Invalid > certificate" should be added for the failure case. > > Should we have these in the registration draft? > > > Cheers, > Ari > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
