Re: [core] Comments on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-02

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Thu, 18 October 2018 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71772130E13; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
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 I9n_HXRu4cQK; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 356E0130E26; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (192.168.1.162) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:46:12 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?'Christian_M._Ams=FCss'?= <christian@amsuess.com>
CC: <draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag@ietf.org>, <core@ietf.org>
References: <00fa01d461b0$2a314f40$7e93edc0$@augustcellars.com> <20181017141813.GA4084@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181017141813.GA4084@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:50:50 -0700
Message-ID: <005c01d46735$05e75000$11b5f000$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLGqAiwYYwG1/OR40amvzbXok6eqgIEN27gozD3atA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.162]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/2Q7MFaYpfrg_ixMKOqACOpbqwSs>
Subject: Re: [core] Comments on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-02
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 22:51:02 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian M. Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:18 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> Cc: draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag@ietf.org; core@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-02
> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> thanks for your review; we're working it into an updated document for
WGLC.
> 
> Responding to the comments related to Request-Tag:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:17:12PM -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > * Section 3.1 - The note to the RFC editor has me confused.  Firstly,
> > I am not sure why it should be moved rather than just staying here.
> 
> Updated. I hope that the process of submission will be clear enough
beforehand
> that we can remove the paragraph or move the text ourselves
> -- if (as I expect) OSCORE enters AUTH48 before we submit ERT to the RFC
> editor, that text will be gone by then.
> 
> > * Section 3.1 - I think that the value of Request-Tag is potentially
> > going to be different depending on if it is in the inside rather than
the outside.
> > You may be doing two different block transfers and each needs its own
value.
> 
> Updated to explicitly state that those values are independent because they
> relate to an inner or outer blockwise transfer.
> 
> > * Section 3.2 - the first paragraph does not scan.  I am not sure what
> > it says as it seems to be contradictory.
> 
> That paragraph assumed a very particular implementation method for servers
> (that unknown options are processed in bulk before known options); does
this
> re-wording read better to you?:
> 
>   The Request-Tag option does not require any particular processing on
>   the server side outside of the processing already necessary for any
>   unknown elective proxy-safe cache-key option: The option varies the
>   properties that distinguish blockwise operations (which includes all
>   options except elective NoCacheKey and except Block1/2), and thus the
>   server can not treat messages with a different list of Request-Tag
>   options as belonging to the same operation.

Yes that reads better

> 
> > * Section 3.2 - para 2 - The example sentence looks odd.  Do you mean
> > it can have a cached response not a free response?
> 
> That was worded confusingly and is now changed.
> 
> > * Section 3.2 - para "especially" - I find the first sentence very
> > hard to understand.
> 
> That paragraph has become obsolete with the presence of core-stateless
> anyway and was replaced with a reference there later in the proxy
application.
> 
> > * Section 3.3 - last para - how do you recycle something that is
> > absent?  I think the last clause needs examining.
> 
> Added a sentence on absent Request-Tag options being a value of its own,
> explaining why that can be recycled just as well.
> 
> > * Section 3.4.1 - Item 2 - how is a client supposed to be able to know
> > this if the proxy in the middle just passes it through w/o changing
> > it?  Two different clients could end up with the same Request-Tag.
> > One would hope that they would have different tokens because of the
proxy
> however.
> 
> The whole 3.4.1 is, as per item 1, only applicable to blockwise operations
split
> into end-to-end protected individual exchanges.
> 
> (Ie. DTLS w/o proxies, or inner blockwise in OSCORE).
> 
> If that does not answer the question, I don't fully understand it, please
help me
> find where we diverge.

Ok - if you say proxies are not there then I have no issues

> 
> > * Section 3.4.1 - This seems backwards.  I thought that OSCORE was
> > tightly bound to the end point, but this paragraph says it is not.
> 
> That was my idea of OSCORE inner-blockwise being allowed to jump
transports
> (which it could easily do but is not specified that way); I've replaced
the
> paragraph with a weaker and more hypothetical one.
> 
> (By "bound to the end point" I meant that whereas a running DTLS session
will
> only stay alive while IP/port/interface quintuple stays the same, an
OSCORE
> context can be used even after those endpoint identifiers have
> changed.)

That makes sense - It might be better to talk about endpoint addresses then
rather than just using endpoint which corresponds to a server (or client).


> 
> > * Section 3.4.3 - You have a "Section TBA" here
> >
> > * Section 3.4.3 - Please keep the section for justification of
> > Request-Tag being repeatable.
> 
> Given that we now do groundwork for Stateless which is more directly
> applicable, that document is now referenced instead, and left in.

Look good

Jim

> 
> 
> Thanks again
> Christian
> 
> --
> To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater
powers.
>   -- Bene Gesserit axiom