Re: [babel] minor DTLS comment

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Fri, 04 January 2019 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 6F352130E50 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:07:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 wrti3EXuFLVL for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 51B2F130E89 for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 12:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049287.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id x04K6tRf031518; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 15:07:19 -0500
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2ptd1tj2j4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 04 Jan 2019 15:07:18 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x04K7GCt023419; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 15:07:17 -0500
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [135.47.91.176]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x04K7BI2023255; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 15:07:11 -0500
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id D9FC64014060; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 20:07:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.155]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id C3E4840135EA; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 20:07:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.5]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 15:07:11 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: 'David Schinazi' <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [babel] minor DTLS comment
Thread-Index: AdSkL1vol8xv1+2PTJSCJUACYAMkywAX+64AAAnjvdA=
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 20:07:11 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF8360C@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF82DC1@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <CAPDSy+4jxWmQ611mfQiiPrFfG3P1m7w8RNA4HNuTrJU6NQ0y_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+4jxWmQ611mfQiiPrFfG3P1m7w8RNA4HNuTrJU6NQ0y_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.254.227]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF8360CGAALPA1MSGUSRBF_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-04_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901040170
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/f4U6AEP99cB0SChesy_kpGgQAyU>
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 20:07:22 -0000

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.” ?

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_jech_babel-2Ddrafts_commit_a5a372a942ebc7951b2847d88123d75ab8169f2f&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=tF85S5lNHho1vtoAuYqSr4xNAqd3mDoVnWT0tzUcG_4&s=IA1V5LnHgwtrHGj7s01YpYCCbG-6Xz4xDnIq0Komyk8&e=>

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<mailto: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<mailto:babel@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_babel&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=tF85S5lNHho1vtoAuYqSr4xNAqd3mDoVnWT0tzUcG_4&s=0v3cnUWxKUHVYXDxGJMwdKfr19dC1bM7XLF5Y3azRH8&e=>