IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] Some open HMAC issues

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Sun, 15 July 2018 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2470130E77 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85CU50IIMERs for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E69130E48 for <babel@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1531685143; bh=1CjUlVabVsIBdqrJWCogQxukb7wZ0dT8wQ8jIxiRfLg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=WRXDRPmZHNsuOLE+VhbSbotx0bRcWZJYlP0EguBTMZE34WGzVbwI9Sprtqr08izQ/ 3wTmQLWIJ1UwfTV4XiNGGyG4l62UvwgISm8VWZjwP5jZFA2MLnu9dwIKLqIF9pJ7S8 hXycHkUrzKbJGtpDV2UslLixlTJWQSWOrVW6ilq9GylOij7owb+hhvYjKaF70lQ/Xu nmYrz6bvjUymAH6LNnsTzNqc+sIE3Iz8SYS+ajmx3BVNBU7IChEmAfeZfWaWaDgxNn jCpb9b5gRMEEHjDQbzpVG8Nv6GFaAJXGVoEffck2XViwmvBTChpDdIqmYhTB7q0r63 sFGfHw03xdEgg==
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: babel@ietf.org, Weronika Kołodziejak <weronika.kolodziejak@gmail.com>, Clara Dô <clarado_perso@yahoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87h8l0hhau.wl-jch@irif.fr>
References: <87sh545st3.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bmbb9jyw.fsf@toke.dk> <87sh4luzrn.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87r2k495y0.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8l0hhau.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 22:05:32 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87d0vo8dtf.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/1w_7CfCEQSKA4AkYA_-_K-uCSuQ>
Subject: Re: [babel] Some open HMAC issues
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:05:48 -0000

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:

>>> 3. You do want to allow tiny indices (unless we adopt Markus' proposal),
>>> since some implementations will want to save bytes on the wire by
>>> using a real-time clock.
>
>> Sure, that's fine. Should 0-size be allowed, or should we require at
>> least one byte?
>
> Allow it. The property that's required is that a node never reuses the
> same index with the same key -- one possible implementation strategy
> would be to perform key rotation whenever state has been lost, in
> which case 0-size indices would be fine.

OK, fine with me.

>>> I haven't made an opinion yet on whether we want a limit to the size of
>>> indices.
>
>> Well, I think we should. My implementation will currently discard any PC
>> TLVs with an index longer than 10 bytes :)
>
> Hmm.
>
> I mean, hmm.

What? Are you saying that getting standards modified so they fit your
implementation is *not* how one is supposed to approach the IETF? ;)

-Toke

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email