Re: [babel] Proposed appendix to Babel-HMAC

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Tue, 22 January 2019 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
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 90D50130F3A for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:34:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 boLUR_JPosjp for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07C5212E043 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x0MGWVvB013549; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:32:31 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D9B4B2E2; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:32:37 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id A6KNa2-sh0om; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:32:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CA444B2DD; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:32:32 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:32:32 +0100
Message-ID: <875zugk5zz.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: 'Dave Taht' <dave@taht.net>, "babel@ietf.org" <babel@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DFA4C1E@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <87h8e9bgv3.wl-jch@irif.fr> <877ef0pwlu.fsf@taht.net> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DFA4C1E@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:32:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C47459F.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C47459F.002 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C47459F.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/TT0ac2IV-5PfyCkV4ANqvIS6l-c>
Subject: Re: [babel] Proposed appendix to Babel-HMAC
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:34:41 -0000

Barbara said:

> I'm not sure this proposed appendix is still being considered?

My understanding is the same as Barbara's, we're no longer doing an
appendix.

> But in the information model, I proposed the parameter be binary
> datatype (noting that I would be using a hexBinary datatype with the
> TR-181 data model).

Perhaps you might mention that hex is the preferred human-readable format
for this particular piece of data?

> If we think there is value in an appendix on configuration of the HMAC
> key, I'm fine with that.

It makes me a little uncomfortable -- I'd rather we didn't give any
implementation advice until we've got more implementation experience.
(How many times have you looked at an RFC, started to implement the advice
in their informative appendix, just to find out that it cannot reasonably
be implemented, or at least not without a lot more work than the appendix
implies?)

Dave said:

> If the appendix is considered necessary anywhere I would substitute
> "human minions" for "human slaves" as being more PC.

Heh.  You do realise that the word has sexual undertones in French?

-- Juliusz