Re: HIP BOF Review

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

At 12:37 PM 10/11/2003 -0800, James Kempf wrote:
> I basically agree with EKR's review, but have a few additional comments. I
> think it might be helpful to get them to try separating out the components
> of HIP that EKR identified and think about other possible options to replace
> them. In particular, either though experiment or careful analysis, I think
> they need to explain what benefits the cryptographic identity binding has
> beyond simply separating the identity and location. If they can't come up
> with a very good reason for that, then generating the identifier
> anynonomously or by hashing the DNS name

Well if you did that then the DNS name is the identifier isn't it and the
mapping from DNS name to IS is effectively 1:1 (well 1:0.x because of the
hashing). I personally think it better to use an explicit DNS mapping in order
to allow other than 1:1 relationship with the DNS.

You want benefits. I'd prefer to see damage in this case. i.e. I see no harm
in using  the key as the identifier, and unless there is a compelling story 
that this
approach is broken then this strikes me as acceptable.

(theres also a second story that has more to do with the commercialization
of the DNS namespace, but I'll refrain from proceeding any further! )

  Geoff