Chacham's Journal: Chronicle: RFC 4423 (HIP)

Well, RFC 4423 is fresh off the presses, and it gives Moskowitz his second RFC authorship, the first being RFC 1918. (Though, there he was "B" for "Bob".)

Now i've got to take a look at it so i can intellegently to him about it. Though, it seems odd that it starts off by saying "Occasionally, this memo may be confusing or self-contradicting." Heh, couldn't make it easy, could he?

Should i tell him that "hip" is no longer a "hip" word? :)

That was interesting

[Degrees]

As an email administrator, I looked at it from the point of view of reducing spam. Although it could help a little bit, it will still require a change in the way email is delivered to take advantage of HIP. At its simplest, we could award points toward 'non-spamminess' for Message Transfer Agents offering a HIT. As the host with the particular HIT sends more mail, it becomes more trusted (or not). Although mildly effective, it doesn't solve the problem. The bigger spammers will just generate new HITs per ho

Re:That was interesting

[Chacham]

Well, i *still* haven't read it yet, so i haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. :)

He did say this is the first of a series of RFCs on HIP, and they are hoping for feedback to shape the rest of the implementation.

Re:That was interesting

[Degrees]

I got the basic idea of it from the RFC, but.... I'm sure there are people who could comment on it and make insightful comments. Myself, I'm bit bit too brain-tired to invest the kind of heavy thinking required to flesh out the foibles and fixes.

In a way, you could think of it as a kind of Caller-ID for IP at the Session Layer. However, it is data presented by the originator (not the carrier) - so each originator can have many identities. The key is that each ID can be tested for authenticity for each sess

Re:That was interesting

[Chacham]

OKies, perhaps i'll read it and come back to your comments.

Thanx.