Re: [babel] minor DTLS comment

Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Fri, 04 January 2019 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <dave.taht@gmail.com>
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 C2D4A130E8F for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:26:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Kpf8TvZ_kFQl for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B42D9130E89 for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id d19so41656817qtq.9 for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:26:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=duTYf7B/BA5MPb87qP4Mz/b2ZxpgkTjQvAG3hsta1iU=; b=stbcmZgnRDkhvVZxc8XWvcnFK3sE+uVBVCC2kdGHVF8uC1RbbPj/E/fBUV/aOW2+Kb L3Z66dgaNOJEA1CHF0C7vcWPQqgm9bHvOmRW7qArEvLkN4TInwuo1nQ8NU9bliJ2DccM VnzYc/RI7ZS2baA9IiBkQxV2JgjiSVCfZDo8zwqCcCTgZ6NjQPi+O8lV3eM8HhxvR8Bb lJxMMnGiyn21TEjMBjN4p1YiK9yz6jGV+NDh6QGLoCm2jxc3nhm6h7gTQi+nA4+qfASg NeODPfb3xie0T4dYCK+iv+AfKurBpFwSoz2uJuFmWIAFxbPXIYpv9iTGWnUb/Gz2jcuN kR7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=duTYf7B/BA5MPb87qP4Mz/b2ZxpgkTjQvAG3hsta1iU=; b=PSgMmsfcFlCv7NIAsd+0U4MzUIc5VPFH9i+FCbCwJqlYq4JhwJyXaRreRWCynXCuzF JLY17sk8rcsvENDYPLoyjwk9VnuAye/6Z0eJtT41zBxg0QVM92CUrTmdcSNR5EzJelAf gtEyXS3ztajGFviXEIe0IQf2r+9Du7b1REV0K8nnFP6HPiVC1Bk7eIpa+HIg9bZPhpCM Sizn2frRqgSZoRgkqluwHHqCR2XaD7gCHqnkAUfy3jtb7ijVoGYuUqH0HrFhc0qPzlms J9cn9greNxCUyUfcmCWsRZ9NiG1rmO8+QkfumF5h0QXwB9rC+fElJNfMUAOa/pp06Jwz apuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfbnvk6D5qxBJxvQR7ka+QzvRwQDoXwMfVosFuViVHvVQcgq/5S HJhmxspBpFqZtMhW/8O5ah3g3Y/v9xtWFJ+bcgc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6/UJ4rnaZXY4s8SywTRVpSOi6xKMxRTCeAwvWi0yZuXFAYLXfuf8lT3Q2QZvhrnhhnb3RBiy1XA+udYFWMwu4=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8a5a:: with SMTP id 26mr51212055qvu.94.1546633582647; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:26:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF82DC1@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAPDSy+4jxWmQ611mfQiiPrFfG3P1m7w8RNA4HNuTrJU6NQ0y_Q@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF8360C@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF8360C@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 12:26:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA93jw7f+yG88CqoiN1UvSRs1AEtOVU_bonQGAa6gmGQjuwKYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5tTid7P2_WBwftDRawtQtvEA7Vo>
Subject: Re: [babel] minor DTLS comment
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 20:26:26 -0000

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:07 PM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm.
>
> " Babel over DTLS operates on a different port than unencrypted Babel.
>
> All Babel over DTLS nodes MUST act as DTLS servers on a configured port, and
>
> MUST listen for unencrypted Babel traffic on a distinct configured port.”
>
>
>
> An implementation doesn’t have to allow for configuration of ports. They could just be hard-coded.
>
> I don’t like that I need the context of the first sentence to understand unambiguously what the second port is “distinct” from (i.e., distinct from the unencrypted Babel port).
>
>
>
> How about just “ Babel over DTLS MUST operate on a different port than unencrypted Babel.” ?
>

Sure.

(I had proposed at one point that the dtls version operate over
udp_lite or even dccp, on the same port number, but have since
discovered osx doesn't support either)
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
> From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:41 PM
> To: STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com>
> Cc: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [babel] minor DTLS comment
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comment, Barbara. I agree with you, and have added the following text:
>
> https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/commit/a5a372a942ebc7951b2847d88123d75ab8169f2f
>
>
>
> Please let us know if you feel it addresses your comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 5:35 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
>
> Since the DTLS draft is still open for comments, I do have a small one about how the UDP ports are characterized.
> The IANA assigned ports are default values, and need to be portrayed as such. It's allowed (or should be) for deployed instances to use other values. This is pretty much true of all protocols. Certainly the base babel protocol allows other values to be used (which is why the homenet babel profile mandated use of 6696).
>
> Maybe instead of
>    All Babel over DTLS nodes MUST act as DTLS servers on the "babel-
>    dtls" port (UDP port TBD), and MUST listen for traffic on the
>    unencrypted "babel" port (UDP port 6696).
>
> say
>    All Babel over DTLS nodes MUST act as DTLS servers on the "babel-
>    dtls" port, and MUST listen for traffic on the
>    unencrypted "babel" port.
>    The IANA-assigned values of 6696 for the "babel" port and
>    TBD for the "babel-dtls" port SHOULD be used.
>
> Barbara
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel



-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740