From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tue Apr 17 00:20:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9A221F84F8 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:20:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UnYId-ZYHtla for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de [134.130.7.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D08721F84D3 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:20:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from mx-out-1.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.186]) by mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0M2M007ZT4DQYW20@mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:20:45 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,433,1330902000"; d="scan'208";a="173504989" Received: from relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-1) ([134.130.7.78]) by mx-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:20:14 +0200 Received: from informatik-lufgi-4-137-226-59-222.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.59.222]) by relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0M2M00LM34DQPW20@relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:20:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BCC77C4D3@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:20:18 +0200 Message-id: References: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BCC77C4D3@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> To: "Henderson, Thomas R" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis issue 29: Use different RSA mode OAEP/PSS X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:20:52 -0000 Hi, Am 22.03.2012 um 11:39 schrieb Henderson, Thomas R: > This is the specific IESG comment: > > HIP defines the usage of RSA in signing and encrypting data. Current > recommendations propose usage of, for example, RSA OAEP/PSS for these > operations in new protocols. Changing the algorithms to more current > best practice should be considered. > > RFC 4055 defines RSASSA-PSS and RSAES-OAEP keys. Were these ever discussed/considered as HIP key formats? I cannot remember any discussion related to this. > This might be addressed by defining these as new algorithms in 5201-bis. I agree. One could easily define a new suite. We could do that now or on demand. We need a new suite anyway to stay somewhat compatible with the existing HIP implementations. Tobias > If someone with expertise on this topic could clarify what is needed to address this comment, or could provide a pointer to how other IETF standards have addressed this, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will try to sketch out a proposed solution. > > - Tom > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec -- Dr. Tobias Heer, Postdoctoral Researcher Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems - comsys RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/tobias-heer/ blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi pgp id: AEECA5BF From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tue Apr 17 00:32:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8973321F8476 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:32:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlEY+fx0LrZr for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de [134.130.7.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059C821F8484 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from mx-out-2.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.187]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0M2M001LZ4YHQJB0@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:32:41 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,433,1330902000"; d="scan'208";a="85417939" Received: from relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-1) ([134.130.7.78]) by mx-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:32:41 +0200 Received: from informatik-lufgi-4-137-226-59-222.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.59.222]) by relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0M2M00LZ84YHPW20@relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:32:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer In-reply-to: <4F6B0CC7.5060703@cs.hut.fi> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:32:45 +0200 Message-id: References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF3D4B715@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BCC77C4D2@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4F6B0CC7.5060703@cs.hut.fi> To: Miika Komu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: hip WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis status X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:32:48 -0000 Hi, Am 22.03.2012 um 12:28 schrieb Miika Komu: > Hi, > > On 03/22/2012 12:38 PM, Henderson, Thomas R wrote: >>> #33 reusing DH public values >> Tobias has proposed text here:http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/33 >> >> Are there any comments or should we adopt the proposed text and close this issue? >> >>> > #35 Limiting ECC to co-factor of 1 >> Bob has proposed text here:http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/35 >> >> Are there any comments or should we adopt the proposed text and close this issue? > > I am not an expert on the topic, but proposals seem fine to me. About issue 33: As there were no opposing opinions and TLS also handles the same problem in the proposed way, I will add the text proposed in the issue tracker to the current working document. Tobias > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec -- Dr. Tobias Heer, Postdoctoral Researcher Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems - comsys RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/tobias-heer/ blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi pgp id: AEECA5BF From heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tue Apr 17 07:07:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBBC21F84E1 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hrVfOXdz8DFp for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de [134.130.7.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0E321F84D8 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:07:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from mx-out-2.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.187]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0M2M0076EN7ZIV70@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:07:11 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,434,1330902000"; d="scan'208";a="85486803" Received: from relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-1) ([134.130.7.78]) by mx-2.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:07:12 +0200 Received: from informatik-lufgi-4-137-226-59-222.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.59.222]) by relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0M2M00BRBN7ZD030@relay-auth-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:07:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Heer Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:07:17 +0200 Message-id: To: hip WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [Hipsec] A list of important HIPv2 changes for implementors X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:07:18 -0000 Hello, currently there are at least two efforts to create HIPv2 that I know of. I believe compiling a list of implementation changes that need to be done in order to transform a HIPv1 into a HIPv2 implementation might be useful. I'll try to make this list as complete as I can. Please feel free to respond to this e-mail to add more changes. I also tried to keep this short and concise. Please respond if you don't understand what I mean. The items on this list are often related. I tried not to bundle related things to avoid oversimplification - as a result some things pop up twice in the list. This list is not intended as complete guide but it should serve to make a implementor's life a bit easier by highlighting important changes. It is intended to be something like a checklist but it cannot be used as sole basis for upgrading an HIPv1 implementation. This list assumes that the reader is familiar with RFC5201 and the -bis document. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) HIP Version Number: dual implementations should use the version numbers to distinguish HIPv1 and HIPv2 packets. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Signature and Hash Algorithms: HIPv2 supports more options than HIPv1 support for these algorithms is required. Also the default algorithms are different. Check sections 5.2.7-5.2.11 for new algorithms. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Host Identity Tag structure: The new structure has a number of bits for identifying the employed algorithms. These bits need to be parsed and the HI verification algorithms must be chosen accordingly. Also, when creating a HIT, the right bits must be set according to the employed Algorithms. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) DH negotiation starts in I1 already: The Initiator transmits its supported DH groups in the I1. This means that the I1 now carries a parameter. This parameter must be set, parsed, and used for selecting an appropriate DH group. See section 4.3.3. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) DH negotiations: HIPv2 does not assume that all hosts support all DH groups and algorithms. Therefore this can now be negotiated. The Initiator sets the supported group and the responder responds with its selected group and selection. There are sanity checks that need to be performed in order to safeguard against replay attacks (See sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 and 4.1.6 and 4.1.7). There is a new paremeter: DH_GROUP_LIST and the DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter changed and has new options. Also, there is a restart option if the DH group selection of the Responder does not match the lists of the peers. The selection of the algorithm is solely based on the lists and is very strict. Sloppy selection or missing lists result in incompatibilities and security issues. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Aborting BEX: HIP hosts can now abort the BEX if they suspect an attacker. The necessary conditions are described in 4.1.6. This may affect the state machines of the implementations because simply re-establishing the BEX won't suffice in the face of an attacker. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) The DH negotiations require protection against downgrade attacks. This also affects the state machines because the BEX must be restarted if an attack is suspected (See Section 4.1.7). HIPv2 state machines must implement this restart procedure. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) The tabular state machine states and transitions of HIPv2 are more complete than those of HIPv1. You may want to check if your HIPv1 implementation actually implements all states and state transitions. There is a new transition from I1-SENT to I1-SENT in case no algorithm is supported. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) The KDF is not static any more but is defined by the DH Group. The employed KDF should not be hard-coded any more. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) There are a number of parameters that are new or have changed: HIP_PUZZLE: Stayed as it was but the puzzle is now solved and checked with RHASH. This means that the #i and #j length are now aligned with the length of RHASH. DH_GROUP_LIST: New parameter. DIFFIE_HELLMAN: It can only contain a singe DH group now. The groups and IDs have changed and the mandatory support hash changed. 512-bit RSA was replaced by 160-bit ECDSA. The group ID also defines the KDF now. HIP CIPHER: This was HIP_TRANSFORM and was refined to be more useful. It has a new parameter number, too. HOST_ID: The format has changed and there is a new field for the algorithm. There is also a specification of the expected ECC format. There are new algorithms and new mandatory support for some. HIT_SUITE_LIST: New parameter. TRANSPORT_FORMAT_LIST: HIPv1 used a special parameter range for expressing preferences regarding the selected transport formats. This required to ignore the ascending order of the parameters in the BEX packets for these special parameters. This made implementations somewhat complex because special case handling was necessary. HIPv2 uses lists to express preferences and uses this method for the transport-related parameters as well. Compare the end of Sections 5.2 in RFC5201 and HIPv2. This is a new parameter that replaces the special case handling of parameter numbers. HIP_MAC: This was the HMAC parameter. It was renamed to better reflect its function. It uses RHASH now (not hard-coded SHA-1). HIP_MAC2: This was the HMAC_2 parameter. It was renamed to better reflect its function. HIP_SIGNATURE: The format has changed slightly. There are more bits for the signature algorithm now. NOTIFY: Some codes were renamed. New code: 20 R1_COUNTER: New type number. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) R1 counter is mandatory: Support for the R1 counter is mandatory now. It MUST be echoed now if it is present in an R1. It has a new type number now to reflect that change. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) Improved UPDATE handling: UPDATES MUST contain either SEQ or/and ACK now. Otherwise it is invalid. Hosts MUST be able to process packets with several SEQs now. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) Updated packet handling rules: The description of the packet handling in Section 6.6-6.16 has been revised to match the new procedures. I suggest to double check this description with the behaviors of the implementation carefully. This is the place where errors are quite likely. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) Treating multiply received R1s: The procedures for handling multiple received R1s have been revised (Section 6.8). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) Updated security considerations: The security considerations have been revised in regard to DoS attacks. It is recommended to compare the threats mentioned here to the countermeasures of the implementation. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) Handling of the #I field in the puzzle: The same puzzle #I should not be sent to the same Initiator twice to avoid creating identical key material twice. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) Please read the changelog: It is a good idea to read the changelogs at the end of the current HIPv2 document carefully (Section 11). I know its boring but it mentions all changes and is more complete than this list. That's it for now. Please reply to this mail if more changes come to your mind. I hope this helps. Tobias -- Dr. Tobias Heer, Postdoctoral Researcher Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems - comsys RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/tobias-heer/ blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi pgp id: AEECA5BF From thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com Tue Apr 17 21:50:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FADE21F8533 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QL-HM-1S7inz for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CCDB21F853F for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q3I4nZDq004456 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3I4nYmR021959; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-05.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.109]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3I4nYcC021953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.240]) by XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.109]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:49:34 -0700 From: "Henderson, Thomas R" To: "'Tobias Heer'" , Miika Komu Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:49:33 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis status Thread-Index: Ac0cbE0SsNnMAEIvRyS8KUwdwKRIDQAskKFg Message-ID: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BD24C86A7@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF3D4B715@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BCC77C4D2@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4F6B0CC7.5060703@cs.hut.fi> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: hip WG Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5201-bis status X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:50:06 -0000 > >>> > #35 Limiting ECC to co-factor of 1 > >> Bob has proposed text > here:http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/35 > >> > >> Are there any comments or should we adopt the proposed text and > close this issue? > > > > I am not an expert on the topic, but proposals seem fine to me. >=20 > About issue 33: > As there were no opposing opinions and TLS also handles the same > problem in the proposed way, I will add the text proposed in the issue > tracker to the current working document. >=20 This is fine with me; any thoughts on taking the same step with issue 35, s= ince it has drawn no comments? - Tom From thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com Tue Apr 17 21:51:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB69921F853F for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:51:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vK3t5KUkeyJv for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59F721F8533 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q3I4ov1l005905 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3I4pT8W020893; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:51:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.112]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3I4pTk3020884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:51:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.240]) by XCH-NWHT-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.112]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:56 -0700 From: "Henderson, Thomas R" To: "'Tobias Heer'" Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:56 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis issue 29: Use different RSA mode OAEP/PSS Thread-Index: Ac0cao7fKg4vLJIcTbG2IB7VXw9SoQAtCW8g Message-ID: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BD24C86A8@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BCC77C4D3@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis issue 29: Use different RSA mode OAEP/PSS X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:51:22 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Tobias Heer [mailto:heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:20 AM > To: Henderson, Thomas R > Cc: HIP > Subject: Re: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis issue 29: Use different RSA mode > OAEP/PSS >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Am 22.03.2012 um 11:39 schrieb Henderson, Thomas R: >=20 > > This is the specific IESG comment: > > > > HIP defines the usage of RSA in signing and encrypting data. > Current > > recommendations propose usage of, for example, RSA OAEP/PSS for > these > > operations in new protocols. Changing the algorithms to more > current > > best practice should be considered. > > > > RFC 4055 defines RSASSA-PSS and RSAES-OAEP keys. Were these ever > discussed/considered as HIP key formats? > I cannot remember any discussion related to this. >=20 > > This might be addressed by defining these as new algorithms in 5201- > bis. > I agree. One could easily define a new suite. We could do that now or > on demand. We need a new suite anyway to stay somewhat compatible with > the existing HIP implementations. Since there were no other comments, I will try to move this forward by gene= rating a text proposal. - Tom From thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com Tue Apr 17 21:53:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E23F21F8575 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:53:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UV1PGyHHBqpr for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE90621F8565 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q3I4r3Z5006240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3I4rZbZ022799; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:53:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-05.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.109]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3I4rZRm022793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:53:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.240]) by XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.109]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:53:02 -0700 From: "Henderson, Thomas R" To: "'Tobias Heer'" Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:53:01 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis issue 29: Use different RSA mode OAEP/PSS Thread-Index: Ac0cao7fKg4vLJIcTbG2IB7VXw9SoQAtCW8g Message-ID: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BD24C86A9@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BCC77C4D3@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis issue 29: Use different RSA mode OAEP/PSS X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:53:07 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Tobias Heer [mailto:heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:20 AM > To: Henderson, Thomas R > Cc: HIP > Subject: Re: [Hipsec] rfc5201-bis issue 29: Use different RSA mode > OAEP/PSS >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Am 22.03.2012 um 11:39 schrieb Henderson, Thomas R: >=20 > > This is the specific IESG comment: > > > > HIP defines the usage of RSA in signing and encrypting data. > Current > > recommendations propose usage of, for example, RSA OAEP/PSS for > these > > operations in new protocols. Changing the algorithms to more > current > > best practice should be considered. > > > > RFC 4055 defines RSASSA-PSS and RSAES-OAEP keys. Were these ever > discussed/considered as HIP key formats? > I cannot remember any discussion related to this. >=20 > > This might be addressed by defining these as new algorithms in 5201- > bis. > I agree. One could easily define a new suite. We could do that now or > on demand. We need a new suite anyway to stay somewhat compatible with > the existing HIP implementations. Since there were no other comments, I will try to move this forward by gene= rating a text proposal. - Tom From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Apr 23 07:22:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D09721F8675; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6pjevgy4dm-B; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E2D21F8664; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:22:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120423142230.15517.70842.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:22:30 -0700 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:22:30 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking Environm= ent (HIP BONE) Instance Specification for REsource LOcation And Discovery (= RELOAD) Author(s) : Ari Keranen Gonzalo Camarillo Jouni Maenpaa Filename : draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2012-04-23 This document is the Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking Environment (HIP BONE) instance specification for the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol. The document provides the details needed to build a RELOAD-based overlay that uses HIP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt From ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com Mon Apr 23 07:26:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B74721F861C for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:26:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JbiaGV9NDE9s for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C3C21F85F0 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF904E6E6 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:29 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ps1J3qfVJrHj for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:29 +0300 (EEST) Received: from tri59.nomadiclab.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DC394E67A for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:29 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4F956694.2080902@nomadiclab.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:26:28 +0300 From: Ari Keranen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hipsec@ietf.org References: <20120423142230.15517.70842.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120423142230.15517.70842.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:26:32 -0000 Folks, This was just a simple update to keep the draft alive and make the section numbers and parameter names to match the ones in the latest RELOAD draft. Cheers, Ari On 4/23/12 5:22 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking Environment (HIP BONE) Instance Specification for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) > Author(s) : Ari Keranen > Gonzalo Camarillo > Jouni Maenpaa > Filename : draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2012-04-23 > > This document is the Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking > Environment (HIP BONE) instance specification for the REsource > LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol. The document provides the > details needed to build a RELOAD-based overlay that uses HIP. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-05.txt > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From iahmad@ee.oulu.fi Tue Apr 24 03:14:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7342D21F8779; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:14:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rnK7kifT62Vt; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee.oulu.fi (ee.oulu.fi [130.231.61.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 831B621F8776; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [82.128.187.136] (dyn-82-128-187-136.psoas.suomi.net [82.128.187.136] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by ee.oulu.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3OAERO2016068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:14:29 +0300 Message-ID: <4F967D04.9090900@ee.oulu.fi> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:14:28 +0300 From: Ijaz Ahmad User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hiprg@irtf.org, hipsec@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010806070709010904090709" Subject: [Hipsec] Survey for HIP Technology Commercialization and Utility X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:14:36 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010806070709010904090709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Your few minutes may contribute to the better utility of Host Identity Protocol. Please respond to the survey and take part in the efforts of commercializing HIP based solutions. I am conducting a survey for the comparison of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) based solutions and Mobile Virtual Private Networks (MVPN) solutions as part of my Master Degree (Wireless Communication Engineering) Thesis at the University of Oulu, Finland, under the supervision of Prof. Andrei Gurtov. The goal is to know the value and efficiency of both Technologies in terms of Mobility, Security, Costs and Facilitating Conditions. Besides other methods, your opinion is welcome to know the value of the above technologies. The survey consists of small multi-choice questions only. You also have the option to write comments, if you want to justify your answers. You have open choice of answering any question; you can skip questions if you do not want to answer. But, you are requested to answer all the questions to reach better conclusions. The survey can be completed within 15 minutes. Link to Survey is; https://www.webropolsurveys.com/S/404AC94E0FE0C686.par Thanking you Ijaz Ahmad Masters Degree Student in Wireless Communication Engineering University of Oulu, Finland --------------010806070709010904090709 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

Your few minutes may contribute to the better utility of Host Identity Protocol. Please 
respond to the survey and take part in the efforts of commercializing HIP based solutions.

I am conducting a survey for the comparison of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) based 
solutions and Mobile Virtual Private Networks (MVPN)  solutions as part of my Master 
Degree (Wireless Communication Engineering) Thesis at the University of Oulu, Finland, 
under the supervision of Prof. Andrei Gurtov.

The goal is to know the value and efficiency of both Technologies in terms of Mobility, 
Security, Costs and Facilitating Conditions. Besides other methods, your opinion is 
welcome to know the value of the above technologies. The survey consists of small 
multi-choice questions only. You also have the option to write comments, if you want to 
justify your answers. You have open choice of answering any question; you can skip 
questions if you do not want to answer. But, you are requested to answer all the 
questions to reach better conclusions.

The survey can be completed within 15 minutes.
Link to Survey is;

         https://www.webropolsurveys.com/S/404AC94E0FE0C686.par

Thanking you

Ijaz Ahmad
Masters Degree Student in Wireless Communication Engineering
University of Oulu, Finland --------------010806070709010904090709-- From mkomu@cs.hut.fi Sun Apr 29 08:59:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB5F21F858D; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHfW2BC0CXiN; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66F621F8567; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.192.10] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.hut.fi with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1SOWWm-0003o9-8i; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:59:12 +0300 Message-ID: <4F9D654F.50305@cs.hut.fi> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:59:11 +0300 From: Miika Komu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hip WG , "hiprg@irtf.org" References: <4F9D61E6.8090102@cs.hut.fi> In-Reply-To: <4F9D61E6.8090102@cs.hut.fi> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4F9D61E6.8090102@cs.hut.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hipsec] Fwd: [hipl-dev] HIPL release 1.0.7 X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:59:15 -0000 FYI, I have rolled out a quick release of HIP for Linux. HIPv2 and Android support is in the works. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [hipl-dev] HIPL release 1.0.7 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:44:38 +0300 From: Miika Komu Reply-To: hipl-dev@freelists.org To: hipl-users@freelists.org, hipl-dev@freelists.org Hi, I have compiled new images for Ubuntu precise, Debian squeeze, Fedora 17 and CentOS 6.2 in HIPL repositories. Rene has also requested a release, so I compiled a snapshot-style release here: http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/release/1.0.7/ Thanks for all contributors!