Re: [babel] [Babel-users] rather than ripemd160...

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 28 November 2018 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@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 B1FBD130E8B for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:41:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 R2prMrN8Ulsc for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (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 C3C221277BB for <babel@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id x21-v6so17714499pln.9 for <babel@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:41:35 -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; bh=7CbUMobb5j6m0+DEgHMCV2yEgVk09uSL+Ae/3B/uIfQ=; b=IQkVQEvdhLcwf3RuPzA8Lro8X21ti6Owln8ZycQy7w3fzZ+jblIdfKEFnAFwQrbbrK 4Z7I4Jg5RPLRmuRJGi+uXoebKB7/ILH9VpR4AdjTeCxMsjX5QIYWEoBPVdD/IOk4naiS Zio3lPS7ZI6aVvlvVAJlZeGUqZ/Si+t0F89EnN+hmUWuvxqWzZvsm23DXHqEMN4TBVy8 eRjjjsKwEtdGps9FWqaaefZElllJ3nKX8Ow4HNk1gwFPVn2U9W7kwsHtJ4Fe8mmkrrQH gvK9f4fWc9liuabg2c0rhIr06Zk4RoJqDY9mTjr67RNRCoZpHm3xndHAelncdkvf5kSB xuRg==
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; bh=7CbUMobb5j6m0+DEgHMCV2yEgVk09uSL+Ae/3B/uIfQ=; b=kexopz3bOocdKEC2tlvuF7J3vg+sGRiWv+jIPFsx2ug8oggnDHp3vw6qw7JMRS+g1Z EyG0YHHbLWwMXHKZDMFKLR/ezR02uAzw+Ca1EJOxILd/LQhC3+l6dYjiABboJDBVhZSp Vs4JEVUQwod3SW3Rg4DltagWH0K8pL9wy4zzn1Zt0eDN2BVSBSbZBFWNbe7oIaKEiJCF 0Xy5qrts7ekX8rLntkusgDc6VqsLQFKOnRqUqqdYUX5RuX+yb5+d8DGNPSWSOkcWnYDj 4lCjw/8QYP1M1OcbzotaLYlQHyt4SkgW0hx8sAGmRMtZfvcPgr7SyrnWjlDaxQ7B7i25 m8dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY7F4QCvwIzHqS6cX6HyTdCd7bHC6CflF2Ew9Uj0IYNO9996KrT r3O8GKI9x8V+f7fHewmRksPdGBnhgUkTQeyFT58=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VQd+gBdmaz0omH0OrT+v3xEL6+nOt84C4c789DekHE6mQWj6vBexAvyk262K2CI4GfJIsYQDJhE5N0ZJ+kov8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:50e:: with SMTP id 14mr29557961plf.141.1543426895387; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:41:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA93jw5fHRm21yEJsabiiOF1ZP7Zh3M_gEgRo0imBOpRGhf0qA@mail.gmail.com> <87in0koun6.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87in0kx98o.fsf@toke.dk> <CAA93jw5gaYgyUX-ABX156_TnFX25Sy5SLyuRgd28fMLfRW4UHA@mail.gmail.com> <871s78x7z0.fsf@toke.dk> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF44154@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87pnurwo5e.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPDSy+5QDu_kW-f=JWO1cPJJnDwDNpVwxwVC9SxfcE5+EOMpRg@mail.gmail.com> <87o9a9v3c6.fsf@toke.dk>
In-Reply-To: <87o9a9v3c6.fsf@toke.dk>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:41:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+6M9+-cVXwzv1NZ0ju7DSO5h15hE9W1+XFpabNoh-V=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: Barbara Stark <bs7652@att.com>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org, babel@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d62004057bbd13d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/UUG5hfmrWPKdINtRGVT_pu8OIh0>
Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] rather than ripemd160...
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:41:39 -0000

>
>
> Why not? If it's not MTI you risk the case where you get to pick between
> "good performance on weak devices" and "interoperability with RFC-only
> implementations".
>

Where are these "RFC-only implementations" of Babel?
Remember the IETF does not have a protocol police, MTI is purely guidance.
Implementors build what they (or their customers) need for their use-case.
Implementors will add Blake if they need it, not based on whether it's MTI
or not.
Lastly, remember that this is a security solution, so you do NOT want to
interoperate with a future theoretical implementation, because that will
not have the keys. Adding any new node in the network will require a
provisioning step, and that step ensures the new node supports the
required features.