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

Hi,

the proposed changes seemed fine at least to me.

P.S. Sorry, got back from holidays this week.

On 08/05/2016 03:42 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> FYI I've implemented the proposed change in the last draft revision.
>
> 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    [IANA TBD] (Certificate expired): The certificate is no longer valid.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
>

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec