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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

This is fine with me. Thanks.

Dino

> On Sep 26, 2022, at 2:30 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Vina and Fabio,
> 
> Thank you for your replies. We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9303
> 
> (We’ve cc’d Dino so that he is aware of the change below.)
> 
> Please note that we have not removed the hyphen from “128-bits-long”, as suggested by Dino in the email thread for RFC-to-be 9306. “128-bits-long” is a phrasal adjective describing “per-message encryption key” and therefore should be hyphenated. However, we have updated it to be “128-bit-long” (removing the “s” after “bit”). If you would like to see how similar phrasal adjectives are used in other RFCs, please see RFCs 9051, 8169, and 7343. This is the only occurrence of such throughout the cluster. 
> 
> Current text:
>    4.  The 128-bit-long per-message encryption key is computed as:
> 
>           per-msg-key = KDF( nonce + s + PSK[Key ID] )
> 
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> 
> We will await approvals from Albert and Damien prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Sep 26, 2022, at 12:34 PM, Fabio Maino (fmaino) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Alanna, 
>> Dino pointed out a last nit on lisp-sec on the use of '128-bits-long'. 
>> 
>> Are we still in time do this change?
>> 
>> Section 6.5:
>> OLD: 128-bits-long
>> NEW: 128-bits long
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Fabio
>> 
>> On 9/23/22, 2:50 PM, "Alanna Paloma" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>    Hi Authors,
>> 
>>    Thank you for your replies. We have updated your affiliation information in the files accordingly. 
>> 
>>    We will await approvals from all authors prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>> 
>>    The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.xml
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.txt
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.pdf
>> 
>>    The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>> 
>>    For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9303
>> 
>>    Thank you,
>>    RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2022, at 10:47 PM, dsaucez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> Sorry for my late answer, my affiliation is
>>> 
>>> Damien Saucez
>>>  Inria
>>>  2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93
>>>  Sophia Antipolis
>>>  France
>>> 
>>> Thank you
>>> 
>>> Damien Saucez 
>>> 
>>>> On 21 Sep 2022, at 23:32, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated as requested, as well as per Dino’s response to the cluster-wide queries. 
>>>> 
>>>> Please note that we are awaiting word from Vina and Damien regarding how they would like their affiliation information to appear across the documents in C381. 
>>>> 
>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9303-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>>> 
>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9303
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 20, 2022, at 5:47 PM, Fabio Maino (fmaino) <fmaino=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please see in-line...
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/16/22, 3:59 PM, "[e-mail]" <[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.
>>>>> -->   
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 5 
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD: 
>>>>> LISP-SEC builds on top of the security mechanisms defined in
>>>>> 
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> LISP-SEC builds on top of the security mechanisms defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -->   
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Global
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> ECM message
>>>>> 
>>>>> NEW: 
>>>>> ECM
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -->   
>>>>> 
>>>>> The per-msg-key is defined in this doc, and wrapped using the OTK defined in this doc using AES-KEY-WRAP-128 that is specified in RFC3394. The following should be more clear:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 6.5
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> According to [RFC3394] the per-msg-key is used to wrap the OTK with AES-KEY-WRAP-128.
>>>>> 
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> The per-msg-key is then used to wrap the OTK with AES-KEY-WRAP-128, as specified in section 2.2.1 of {RFC3394]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please, change ONLY the following instances: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 6.5
>>>>> OLD: 
>>>>> as well as the AES-KEY-WRAP-128 Key Wrap algorithm
>>>>> NEW: 
>>>>> as well as the AES-KEY-WRAP-128 key wrap algorithm
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD: 
>>>>> 1.  The KDF and Key Wrap algorithms
>>>>> NEW: 
>>>>> 1.  The KDF and key wrap algorithms
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD: 
>>>>> The output of the AES Key Wrap operation is 192-bit long.
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> The output of the AES key wrap operation is 192-bit long.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD: 
>>>>> AES Key Wrap decryption operation
>>>>> NEW: 
>>>>> AES key wrap decryption operation
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -->  
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don’t see any occurrence of non-inclusive language. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for another great review! 
>>>>> Fabio
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 16, 2022, at 3:56 PM, [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] (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], 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] 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>