Pekka's comments about HBAs (was Re: Comments on multi6dt documents

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Pekka,

thanks for the feedback
some replies online

El 09/11/2004, a las 1:36, Pekka Savola escribió:
> ===============================
> HBA:
>
> substantial
> -----------
>
> I think there are two big issues:
>
>  1) The spec should have a clear section which describes the 
> assumptions
> placed upon the features which must be supported in the multi6 
> solution.  In
> this particular case, for example, the CGA Parameter Data Structure 
> needs to
> be passed to the peers out of band

what do you mean by out of band?

i mean the CGA_PDS has to be communicates to the other end, but it will 
be sent in clear through the multi6 protocol.
i.e. there is no need to hide the CGA_PDS to obtain the security of HBAs

ok?

>  because otherwise they can't perform
> verification.  This might help in figuring out how the HBA address
> generation integrates to the rest of the multi6 solution problem space.

I agree that an explanation of how the HBAs could be used in a multi6 
protocol is needed in the draft.
I was thinking to include an example in an appendix

>  2) IPR.  Unfortunately, SEND had IPR; fortunately, RF licensing was 
> granted
> for implementations of SEND.  Someone has to figure out how generic 
> those
> patent applications were, i.e., whether HBA would be covered as well.

Agree, but the chairs suggested to first figure out if HBA are good and 
then go for the IPR stuff, which imho is a good approach

> editorial
> ---------
>
> 5.  HBA verification
>
> ==> I spotted about 3 typos in this section, and one helluva long 
> paragraph
> which should be split up.

ok, i will fix this

thanks, marcelo