Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Sorry for being late to the show.  Email and health problems then catch 
up times...


I agree.


On 07/21/2016 07:39 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> (trimming the whole IESG from the thread for now)
>
> HIP WG folks:
>
> Unless someone objects or has a better proposal, I intend to implement
> the following proposal to resolve Stephen's DISCUSS.
>
> OLD:
>
>     If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>     MUST reject the corresponding registrations with Failure Type [IANA
>     TBD] (Invalid certificate).
>
> NEW:
>
>     If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>     MUST reject the corresponding registrations with the appropriate
>     Failure Type:
>     [IANA TBD] (Bad certificate): The certificate is corrupt, contains
> invalid signatures, etc.
>     [IANA TBD] (Unsupported certificate): The certificate is of an
> unsupported type.
>     [IANA TBD] (Certificate expired): The certificate is no longer valid.
>     [IANA TBD] (Certificate other): The certificate could not be
> validated for some unspecified reason.
>     [IANA TBD] (Unknown CA): The issuing CA certificate could not be
> located or is not trusted.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --julien
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Julien Laganier <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thanks, Stephen.
>>
>> The HIP WG was CC'd on these emails so participants have seen the
>> proposal, I will seek their feedback in a separate note.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --julien
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Stephen Farrell
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> That'd be fine for clearing my discuss.
>>>
>>> I'd encourage you to also get feedback from the WG though as I
>>> don't think I've ever seen a list of cert handling errors that
>>> was correct first time around:-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/07/16 16:11, Julien Laganier wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reviewing the document.
>>>>
>>>> I think there would be value in making the cause of certificate error
>>>> explicit. Would the following change be acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>>     If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>>>>     MUST reject the corresponding registrations with Failure Type [IANA
>>>>     TBD] (Invalid certificate).
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>>
>>>>     If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>>>>     MUST reject the corresponding registrations with the appropriate
>>>>     Failure Type:
>>>>     [IANA TBD] (Bad certificate): The certificate is corrupt, contains
>>>> invalid signatures, etc.
>>>>     [IANA TBD] (Unsupported certificate): The certificate is of an
>>>> unsupported type.
>>>>     [IANA TBD] (Certificate expired): The certificate is no longer valid.
>>>>     [IANA TBD] (Certificate other): The certificate could not be
>>>> validated for some unspecified reason.
>>>>     [IANA TBD] (Unknown CA): The issuing CA certificate could not be
>>>> located or is not trusted.
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> --julien
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Stephen Farrell
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: Discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.3 - This fails to distinguish between an invalid
>>>>> certificate (e.g. bad signature, unknown signer) and one
>>>>> that is valid, but is not acceptable for this purpose.  I
>>>>> don't get why that is ok for HIP, can you explain?  If it
>>>>> is ok, I think you need to say so. If it is not ok (as I'd
>>>>> suspect) then you appear to need to change text or one more
>>>>> new error code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 7 - I'm fine that this doesn't repeat stuff
>>>>> from 5203, but a sentence saying to go look there too
>>>>> would maybe be good. (I'm not sure if that would fix
>>>>> Alexey's discuss or not. If not, then ignore me and
>>>>> just talk to him about his discuss.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>