[CGA-EXT] Questions on draft-haddad-csi-symbiotic-sendproxy-01
Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu> Mon, 11 January 2010 10:18 UTC
Return-Path: <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>
X-Original-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA5A3A68F7 for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:18:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.76
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rJxsdbxFolcp for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.int-evry.fr (smtp4.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03033A67EE for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.int-evry.fr (smtp2.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.45]) by smtp4.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40CCFE16A5; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:18:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp-ext.int-evry.fr (smtp-ext.int-evry.fr [157.159.11.17]) by smtp2.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752A14050BE; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:18:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [157.159.100.214] (unknown [157.159.100.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-ext.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5079590005; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:18:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:18:37 +0100
From: Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>
X-X-Sender: shad@whitebox
To: whaddad@qualcomm.com, mats.naslund@ericsson.com
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1001111052580.11466@whitebox>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1839116666-1263205117=:11466"
X-INT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-INT-MailScanner-ID: 752A14050BE.AB550
X-INT-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-INT-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, requis 6.01, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60)
X-INT-MailScanner-From: tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu
Cc: cga-ext@ietf.org
Subject: [CGA-EXT] Questions on draft-haddad-csi-symbiotic-sendproxy-01
X-BeenThere: cga-ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: CGA and SeND Extensions <cga-ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cga-ext>
List-Post: <mailto:cga-ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:18:50 -0000
Hello, I read draft-haddad-csi-symbiotic-sendproxy-01 and I find the idea interesting. I am wondering, since your proposal uses a hash as the Modifier (the RAN(128)), how do you use the SEC parameter ? Or maybe you can not anymore. In RFC 3972, a loop increments the Modifier during the CGA generation process. This seems incompatible with your solution. Maybe I missed something and the RAN(128) is different from the Modifier and is an extension field in the CGA PDS (and this would solve the problem). Also, can you confirm that the weak form of anonymity that you describe in the motivation is the one provided in section 5.1 ? I.e. that the node delegates the proxying task while attached to the link. Regards, Tony
- [CGA-EXT] Questions on draft-haddad-csi-symbiotic… Tony Cheneau