An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)
RFC 7343

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document specifies an updated Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHID) format that obsoletes that in RFC 4843. These identifiers are intended to be used as endpoint identifiers at applications and Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and not as identifiers for network location at the IP layer, i.e., locators. They are designed to appear as application-layer entities and at the existing IPv6 APIs, but they should not appear in actual IPv6 headers. To make them more like regular IPv6 addresses, they are expected to be routable at an overlay level. Consequently, while they are considered non-routable addresses from the IPv6-layer perspective, all existing IPv6 applications are expected to be able to use them in a manner compatible with current IPv6 addresses.

The Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers originally defined in RFC 4843 lacked a mechanism for cryptographic algorithm agility. The updated ORCHID format specified in this document removes this limitation by encoding, in the identifier itself, an index to the suite of cryptographic algorithms in use.')

[Ballot comment]
- I was a bit surprised not to see an OGA value being
defined for e.g. sha256. Why is that not here? (Put
another way, I didn't get the meaning of the 2nd para of
section 6.)

- No need to answer this if you don't care, which is
probably the case, I'm just curious:-) We added a special
reserved value to RFC6920 for ORCHIDs. Should that now be
changed or something?

[Ballot discuss]
I think the draft looks good and would just like to discuss adding additional guidance if needed as I am not clear on how something is handled and would like to see if additional guidance will assist with security and interoperability.

The draft includes design choices in section 4, the first being:
o  As many bits as possible should be preserved for the hash result.

There is no minimum requirement for preserving bits or mention of the space left for these bits (that I could find and maybe they are somewhere else?).

The current guidance is in RFC2104 and says to is to truncate no less than half of the length of the hash output. 

Is there space for more than half?  If so, this guidance should be included, if not, a warning that it is not possible would be helpful.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-07#appendix-B. Always appreciated.

Below is the OPS-DIR review from Sue.

Technical/Administrative issue:

The IANA text for section 6 clearly identifies the IANA registry.  However, I’m not clear about the form IANA wants to review the entry for this table:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml

The authors should verify with IANA that the form of their IANA consideration sections is as IANA wants to see it.

Editorial Nit Comments (should fix, but not required)

Section 5 paragraph 2

Old:

“Therefore, the present design allows to use different hash functions to be used per given Context ID for constructing ORCHIDs from input bit strings. “

New:

“Therefore, the present design allows the use of different hash functions per

Given Context ID for constructing ORCHIDS for input bit strings.”

Grammatical note for Julien and Francis:  Old sentences utilizes the infinitive form (to use/to be used) without having any real verb.  Since this is a specification going with the present tense verb provides a precise definition.

[Ballot discuss]
Good update, and I'm glad this is going to Standards Track.

I have one small thing to discuss:
"The prefix that was temporarily allocated for the experimental ORCHID is to be returned to IANA in 2014," has a date that was put there in the -00 version in 2010.  At that time, 2014 was several years away (or "a few", depending upon how one reckons these terms).  But now, the Standards Track RFC will itself be published in 2014, and likely not until July or August.  Is 2014 really still a safe date to have implementations migrated away from the experimental version, so the experimental prefix can safely be returned and reassigned?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to the reviewer's questions as soon as possible.

IANA has three questions about this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/

IANA notes that allocation for the previous version of ORCHID, 2001:10::/28, has been marked deprecated. 

Second, IANA will allocate a new 28-bit prefix from this registry.  IANA notes the request for 2001:0000::/23.

IANA Question -> The next available /28 is 2001:20::/28. One of our reviewers writes, "I would like to suggest that we offer 2001:20::/28 on the basis that we generally fill from the smaller numbers to the larger numbers. However, if there is a reason to use a different prefix then I'd like them to suggest one. However, it would be good if we could avoid breaking up a longer shorter prefix when assigning this /28, just so that those shorter prefixes are available other protocols in the future."

Is it necessary to allocate 2001:0000::/23?

IANA Question -> Allocations in the IPv6 Special Purpose Address registry have entries for:

Address Block     
Name 
RFC
Allocation Date
Termination Date 
Source
Destination
Forwardable
Global
Reserved-by-Protocol

Please add this information necessary to fill in these columns to the IANA Considerations section for ORCHIDv2.

IANA Question -> Is any IANA Action needed for the Context Identifier?  The current draft indicates that no values are being defined and that Context Identifier shares the name space for CGA Type Tags.

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed by IANA upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers
  Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-06-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies an updated Overlay Routable Cryptographic
  Hash Identifiers format that obsoletes RFC4843.  These identifiers
  are intended to be used as endpoint identifiers at applications and
  Application Programming Interfaces (API) and not as identifiers for
  network location at the IP layer, i.e., locators.  They are designed
  to appear as application layer entities and at the existing IPv6
  APIs, but they should not appear in actual IPv6 headers.  To make
  them more like regular IPv6 addresses, they are expected to be
  routable at an overlay level.  Consequently, while they are
  considered non-routable addresses from the IPv6 layer point-of-view,
  all existing IPv6 applications are expected to be able to use them in
  a manner compatible with current IPv6 addresses.

  The Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers originally
  defined in RFC4843 lacked a mechanism for cryptographic algorithm
  agility.  The updated ORCHID format specified in this document
  removes this limitation by encoding in the identifier itself an index
  to the suite of cryptographic algorithms in use.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Proposed Standard, as indicated in the header. The HIP WG is
  currently chartered to revise a few Experimental RFCs into Proposed
  Standards. This is one of those RFCs. The HIP WG learned a few
  lessons experimenting with those Experimental RFCs. RFC 6538
  documents those learnings.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document specifies an updated Overlay Routable Cryptographic
  Hash Identifiers format that obsoletes the earlier format defined
  in [RFC4843].  These identifiers are intended to be used as
  endpoint identifiers at applications and Application Programming
  Interfaces (API) and not as identifiers for network location at the
  IP layer, i.e., locators.  They are designed to appear as
  application layer entities and at the existing IPv6 APIs, but they
  should not appear in actual IPv6 headers.  To make them more like
  regular IPv6 addresses, they are expected to be routable at an
  overlay level.  Consequently, while they are considered
  non-routable addresses from the IPv6 layer point-of-view, all
  existing IPv6 applications are expected to be able to use them in a
  manner compatible with current IPv6 addresses.

  The Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers originally
  defined in [RFC4843] lacked a mechanism for cryptographic algorithm
  agility.  The updated ORCHID format specified in this document
  removes this limitation by encoding in the identifier itself an
  index to the suite of cryptographic algorithms in use.


Working Group Summary:

  There is full consensus behind this document. In Septembre 2012, the
  authors of the draft consulted with Brian Haberman, who was the HIP
  WG's responsible AD at that point, to make sure the purpose of the
  draft was clear.


Document Quality:

  As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the
  Experimental HIP specs. At least HIP for Linux and OpenHIP will be
  updated to comply with the standards-track specs.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd.
  Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd has reviewed version 04 of the document and
  believes it is ready for publication request.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  The original Experimental RFC was thoroughly reviewed by the whole
  IETF community. Additionally, implementations of the Experimental
  RFC have allowed the HIP community to learn a few lessons, as
  documented in RFC 6538. No further reviews are needed.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  None.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  The whole WG understands the document and agree with it. Note that
  this is the revision of an existing RFC (i.e., a bis document).


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

  The warnings given by the ID nits tool are not relevant as they do
  not represent actual issues.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No formal review is needeed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  Yes, the publication of this RFC will obsolete RFC 4843. RFC 4843 is
  listed in the document header and is discussed in the Abstract,
  although not in the Introduction. If having the Introduction discuss
  RFC 4843 as well was considered necessary, copying the last
  paragraph of the Abstract and pasting it into the Introduction could
  be trivially done.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

  The IANA Considerations Section is consistent with the body of the
  document.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  There are no new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  No special reviews were needed.