Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9478 <draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-12> for your review

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Sahana’s proposals.

Paul

Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone

On Sep 21, 2023, at 17:44, Sahana Prasad <[e-mail]> wrote:



Hi all,

Thanks for the review.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Please find our responses inline below.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:50 PM <[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] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
("RFC Style Guide").

Original:
   Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector support for IKEv2

Current:
   Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector Support for the   
   Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) -->

Yes, we confirm that this change is fine.

2) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). -->

None

3) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase the following sentence for readability?

Original:
   That is, the IKE implementation might not have any knowledge of the
   meaning of this selector, other than as a type and opaque value to
   pass to the SPD.

Perhaps:
   That is, the IKE implementation might not have any knowledge regarding
   the meaning of this selector other than recognizing it as a type and
   opaque value to pass to the SPD. -->

 

Yes, this text above sounds good.

4) <!-- [rfced] We are unable to parse the following sentence, particularly
"start and end address/port match". Please let us know how we can update
this text for clarity.

Original:
   If multiple Security Labels are allowed for a given IP protocol,
   start and end address/port match, the initiator includes all of
   the acceptable TS_SECLABEL's and the responder MUST select one
   of them.

Perhaps:
   If multiple Security Labels are allowed for a given IP protocol, such
   as a start and end address/port match, the initiator includes all the
   TS_SECLABELs that are acceptable, and the responder MUST select one of
   them. -->

We would like to rephrase this as follows:

OLD:
   If multiple Security Labels are allowed for a given IP protocol,
   start and end address/port match, the initiator includes all of
   the acceptable TS_SECLABEL's and the responder MUST select one
   of them.

NEW:

   If multiple Security Labels are allowed for a Traffic Selector's IP address range,

   protocol and port range, the initiator includes all of these acceptable Security Labels.

   The responder MUST select exactly one the Security Labels

 

5) <!-- [rfced] We have clarified and rephrased the following sentence to limit
the repetition of the word "first". Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   If the initiator does not support this, and wants to prevent the
   responder from picking different labels for the TSi / TSr payloads,
   it should attempt a Child SA negotiation with only the first Security
   Label first, and upon failure retry a new Child SA negotiation with
   only the second Security Label.

Current:
   If the initiator does not support this and wants to prevent the
   responder from picking different labels for the TSi/TSr payloads,
   it should attempt a Child SA negotiation and start with the first
   Security Label only. Upon failure, the initiator should retry a
   new Child SA negotiation with only the second Security Label. -->

Yes, this text sounds good.

6) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that you would like to point to this reference
even though there is a note stating that it was withdrawn as of
October 2015 (see the warning at
<https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/188/finals" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/188/finals>).

Current:
   [FIPS188]  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Standard Security Label for Information Transfer", FIPS
              PUB 188, September 1994,
              <https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/188/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/188/
              archive/1994-09-06>.-->   

The note and reference can be removed

7) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently, so we updated the
text to reflect the latter forms. Please let us know of any objections.

  traffic selector -> Traffic Selector
  Traffic Selector type -> Traffic Selector Type
  TS Payload -> TS payload
  TSi/TSr Payloads -> Tsi/TSr payloads

The first two are fine, the last two must remain TSi and TSr (as per RFC 7296, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7296.html#section-1.2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7296.html#section-1.2 )

Furthermore, based on your feedback we have following suggestions as fixed:

In the document replace TS_TYPE with TS Type.

OLD
This document specifies a new Traffic Selector Type

NEW
This document specifies a new Traffic Selector Type (TS Type) of

OLD
The negotiation of Traffic Selectors is specified in

NEW
The negotiation of traffic selectors is specified in

OLD
the term Traffic Selector

NEW
the term "Traffic Selector"

OLD
A Traffic Selector (no acronym) is one selector

NEW
A Traffic Selector (capitalized, no acronym) is one full selector set

OLD
This document adds a new TS_TYPE of TS_SECLABEL that is valid only with at least one other type of Traffic Selector

NEW
This document adds a new TS Type of TS_SECLABEL that is valid only with at least one other TS Type

OLD
that specific Traffic Selector MUST be ignored

NEW
that specific TS payload MUST be ignored.

OLD

If no other Traffic Selector of TS_TYPE TS_SECLABEL can be selected, the exchange MUST be aborted

NEW

If no other TS payload contains an acceptable TS_SECLABEL Traffic Selector Type, the exchange MUST be aborted

OLD
If the TSi Payload contains a traffic selector for TS_TYPE

NEW
If the TSi Payload contains a Traffic Selector with TS Type

OLD
If the Security Label traffic selector is optional

NEW
If the Security Label TS Type is optional

 

b) We notice instances of "Security Label" vs. "security label". We
assume that the lowercase form is used when referring to security
labels in general and the capitalized form is used when referring to
the opaque byte stream of at least one octet. Please review this
term in the running text and let us know if any instances need
updating for consistency.-->

 

Yes, confirmed.

8) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations/Acronyms

a) We note that "MLS" is expanded as "Multi-Level Secure (MLS)" in RFC 5570 and
"Multilevel Systems (MLS)" in this document. Would you like to update the
expansion to match RFC 5570 (option i)? If you do not want to update it to match,
should the abbreviation be plural (option ii)?

Perhaps:
i)  Historically, security labels used by Multi-level Secure (MLS) systems
    are comprised of a sensitivity level (or classification) field and a
    compartment (or category) field, as defined in [FIPS188] and
    [RFC5570].
or

ii) Historically, security labels used by Multilevel Systems (MLSes) are
    comprised of a sensitivity level (or classification) field and a
    compartment (or category) field, as defined in [FIPS188] and
    [RFC5570].

We prefer option (i).

b) We note that Section 1.2 defines two uses for the term "Traffic Selector"
(one with no abbreviation and one with the abbreviation "TS"). To make
abbreviations consistent, we suggest using "TS" after the first introduction
of the term where appropriate. Are there instances throughout the document
where we should not abbreviate this term (e.g., only abbreviating the term
where it modifies a noun, such as Traffic Selector Type)? -->

Yeah, only Traffic Selector payload or Traffic Selector Type can be abbreviated as TS type.

The rest of the places should be 'Traffic Selector' and no abbreviation.

9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">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. -->

No changes needed.

 

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mc/kc


On Sep 12, 2023, at 1:49 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/09/12

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/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">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/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">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/rfc9478.xml" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.html" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.pdf" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.txt" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-diff.html" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-rfcdiff.html" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-xmldiff1.html" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478-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/rfc9478.original.v2v3.xml" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.original.v2v3.xml

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.form.xml" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9478.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9478" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9478

Please let us know if you have any questions. 

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9478 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-12)

Title            : Labeled IPsec Traffic Selector support for IKEv2
Author(s)        : P. Wouters, S. Prasad
WG Chair(s)      : Yoav Nir, Tero Kivinen

Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters