Re: [auth48] [C381] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9303 <draft-ietf-lisp-sec-29> for your review

["Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the reminder Alvaro.

I just sent the resolutions for lisp-gpe, I’m on lisp-sec now… 😉

Fabio

From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 12:39 PM
To: Fabio Maino <[e-mail]>, Vina Ermagan <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Albert Cabellos <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [C381] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9303 <draft-ietf-lisp-sec-29> for your review

Authors:  Ping!


On September 16, 2022 at 6:58:59 PM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] It appears that text may be missing in this sentence
after "defined in". Should this refer to RFC 7835? Please review and
let us know how to update.

Original:
LISP-SEC builds on top of the security mechanisms defined in to
address the threats described in Section 4 by leveraging the trust
relationships existing among the LISP entities
([I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]) participating in the exchange of the
Map-Request/Map-Reply messages.
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] HMAC is expanded in this document as "Keyed-Hashing for Message
Authentication (HMAC)". While the title of RFC 2104 matches this expansion,
we have changed it to "Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC)" as that is
more common. Please let us know if you strongly prefer that this be reverted.

o The Map-Server uses the ITR-OTK to compute a Keyed-Hashing for
Message Authentication (HMAC) [RFC2104] that protects the
integrity of the mapping data known to the Map-Server to prevent
overclaiming attacks.
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Should instances of "ECM message" be updated to read simply
"ECM" to avoid redundancy (if expanded, "ECM message" would read
"Encapsulated Control Message message"). Please review and let us know
if we may update the text.

Example from Section 5 (original):
2. The Map-Resolver decapsulates the ECM message, decrypts the ITR-
OTK, if needed, and forwards through the Mapping System the
received Map-Request and the ITR-OTK, as part of a new ECM
message.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] We note that RFC 3394 does not include any mention of
"msg-key" or "per-msg-key". Please review and let us know how to update the
citation.

Original:
According to [RFC3394] the per-msg-key is used to wrap the OTK
with AES-KEY-WRAP-128.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Should "128 less significant bits" be "128 least significant
bits"? Please review.

Original:
The most significant
64-bit are copied in the One-Time Key Preamble field, while the
128 less significant bits are copied in the One-Time Key field of
the LISP-SEC Authentication Data.

Perhaps:
The most significant 64 bits
are copied in the 'One-Time Key Preamble' field, while the 128
least significant bits are copied in the 'One-Time Key' field of
the LISP-SEC Authentication Data.
-->


6) <!--[rfced] It is unclear if "will be discarded" is referring to
"a replayed Map-Reply" or "the incoming Map-Reply". Please review
and let us know how this sentence should be updated.

Original:
If a replayed Map-Reply arrives at the ITR, there is no <nonce,ITR-OTK>
that matches the incoming Map-Reply and will be discarded.

Perhaps (referring "a replayed Map-Reply":
If a replayed Map-Reply arrives at the ITR, there is no <nonce,ITR-OTK>
that matches the incoming Map-Reply and the replayed Map-Reply will be
discarded.
-->


7) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following term appears to be used
inconsistently:

key wrap vs. Key Wrap vs. key wrapping

Please review these occurrences and let us know
if/how this may be made consistent.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script did not flag
any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Sep 16, 2022, at 3:56 PM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/09/16

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.

Planning your review
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

* RFC Editor questions

Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:

<!-- [rfced] ... -->

These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

* Changes submitted by coauthors

Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

* Content

Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references

* Copyright notices and legends

Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

* Semantic markup

Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

* Formatted output

Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:

* your coauthors

* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> (the RPC team)

* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:

* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files
-----

The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.txt

Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
diff files of the XML.

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.original.v2v3.xml

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9303

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9303 (draft-ietf-lisp-sec-29)

Title : LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)
Author(s) : F. Maino, V. Ermagan, A. Cabellos, D. Saucez
WG Chair(s) : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston