(copying also the IESG since we are in IESG evaluation phase)
Hi all,
Here is an update of RFC5201bis/5202bis status. You may have noticed
that RFC5201-bis-15 and RFC5202-bis-06 were published earlier today.
For RFC5201-bis, I have tried to log all open issues in the tracker:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/query?component=rfc5201-bis
Here is a current rundown:
#42, whether to address a possible plaintext attack
#44, IANA section updating (I expect to close this soon)
#45, better reference needed for RSA algorithm
#46, crypto selections for HIP
#47, tracking considerations for HIP
#48, state transition for CLOSING when new user data arrives to send.
#49, resolve Francis Dupont's suggested clarification
#50, update Appendix C example (ORCHID prefix and documentation prefix)
#48 is a new small issue; I'll start a separate thread about it. #50
also hasn't been discussed on the list, but our example packet in
Appendix C needs to be updated.
Since -15 was prepared, we've received some more suggested fixes from
Barry Leiba for the IANA considerations section, so I plan to publish a
version -16 by the end of the week with those corrections and any other
updates that we may be able to make by then.
For RFC5202bis, the main issue is the recommendation of NULL encryption
as a MUST to implement (issue 43). This has been discussed on the saag
list and on this list, and I don't think it is yet resolved although I
would like to again suggest my proposed resolution:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03894.html
- Tom
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
