Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension
RFC 8003

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8003, changed abstract to 'This document specifies a registration mechanism for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) that allows hosts to register with services, such as HIP rendezvous servers or middleboxes.  This document obsoletes RFC 5203.', changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2016-10-14, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis and RFC 5203)

[Ballot comment]
This bis draft was an improvement. I did have one question.

I'm trying to visualize why

  The registrar indicates the minimum and maximum registration lifetime
  that it is willing to offer to a requester.  A requester SHOULD NOT
  request registration with lifetime greater than the maximum
  registration lifetime or smaller than the minimum registration
  lifetime.
 
is a SHOULD NOT - why would a requester choose to disregard the SHOULD and send a request registration with (for example) a lifetime greater than the maximum registration lifetime?

Is the intention for the requester to allow this, and then (for example) cap the lifetime at the maximum registration lifetime? Or is something else supposed to happen?

Whatever the intention is, it might be helpful to provide an explanation about that.

[Ballot 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.

[Ballot 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.)

[Ballot discuss]
I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document creates new subregistries. This makes the status of earlier established registries unclear. Also, other sections have references to Section 7 (e.g. for registration types) which no longer contain relevant information.
I think you should copy the original IANA registration section in its entirety and clearly mark new allocations in it.

[Ballot comment]
I found the "changed since" Appendix, so never mind that ;-)

It would be good if the document said that a registration type is 1 octet without the need to look at the packet diagrams or IANA registration text from RFC 5203 that you deleted.

[Ballot discuss]
-bis documents require "changes since" section.

I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document creates new subregistries. This makes the status of earlier established registries unclear. Also, other sections have references to Section 7 (e.g. for registration types) which no longer contain relevant information.
I think you should copy the original IANA registration section in its entirety and clearly mark new allocations in it.

[Ballot discuss]
-bis documents require "changes since" section.

I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document creates new registries. This makes the status of earlier established registries unclear.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the Parameter Types subregistry of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/

the four references to RFC 5203 will be updated to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the Registration Failure Types subregistry alson in the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/

two, new failure types are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Registration Failure Type: Insufficient resources
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Registration Failure Type: Invalid certificate
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed 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. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, "Gonzalo Camarillo" , hip-chairs@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension'
  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 2015-12-28. 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 a registration mechanism for the Host
  Identity Protocol (HIP) that allows hosts to register with services,
  such as HIP rendezvous servers or middleboxes.  This document
  obsoletes RFC5203.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis/ballot/


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

Document Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09


(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. This document is intended to obsolete RFC 5203,
  which was an Experimental RFC.

(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 a registration mechanism for the Host
  Identity Protocol (HIP) that allows hosts to register with services,
  such as HIP rendezvous servers or middleboxes.  This document
  obsoletes RFC5203.

Working Group Summary:

  There was WG consensus behind this document.

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 documetn shepherd. Terry Manderson is the
  responsible area director.

(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 reviewed revision 08 of this document, which
  was ready for publication.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  No concerns.

(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 document contains no nits.

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

  No formal reviews are needed.

(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, it will obsolete RFC 5203. This fact is discussed on the title
  page header and on the Abstract.

(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 complete and consistent.

(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.

  No new experts are required.

(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 such checks were needed.