[Ace] FW: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Thu, 04 April 2019 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B80C120672 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ye995XMxrRGW for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB9F120671 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude ( by mail2.augustcellars.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:52:31 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: <ace@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 06:52:27 -0700
Message-ID: <005b01d4eaed$a59f8270$f0de8750$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AdTqhNNyNWeMmgN+Rsq71GPkqAXXZAAaLxnQ
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/MmUafPDi-DLI8bqXqHmmo3NLZew>
Subject: [Ace] FW: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 13:52:40 -0000

I cc-ed this to the wrong list. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 6:43 PM
To: 'draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm@ietf.org'
Cc: 'core@ietf.org' <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Mail regarding draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm

Some additional things that need to be thought about.

1.  Someplace as part of the re-key discussions there ought to be some
commentary on the wisdom of rate limiting the frequency of doing re-keying

2. I think that there should be an optional parameter that says "If this
much time has elapsed since the last time you checked, see if the group id
has changed."  This would be combined with a polling client to ensure that
they check for an updated key context before doing some operation.

3.  What happens in the following situations:
a) The key context is changed between a request being sent and the server
receiving the request.  This could just be because the sender did not get
the notification of the key context changing.

b) The response takes "a while" to generate and the key context is changed
after the request is received, but before the response is sent.

c)  The key context is changed in the middle of a block-wise transfer.