Re: [core] Review of draft-fz-core-coap-pm-03

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Fri, 17 March 2023 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 EA379C1516E1 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E4I8uJKxOXEM for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73DA5C151555 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frapeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4PdTfw0FFqz6J6cP; Sat, 18 Mar 2023 00:12:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500006.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.219) by frapeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.21; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:13:24 +0100
Received: from frapeml500006.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.219]) by frapeml500006.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.219]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.021; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:13:24 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
CC: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca=40ri.se@dmarc.ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] Review of draft-fz-core-coap-pm-03
Thread-Index: AQHZShjihhHGiO56RUOpRMd7g0VBf670IksAgAATWqCACSFQAIAB52+g
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 16:13:24 +0000
Message-ID: <daa93472eda34e6ba24dbd22633be20b@huawei.com>
References: <80824788-14ed-2947-824f-f96acd6307b5@ri.se> <ZAtKXsMuVAKlvr3m@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <2cab5d3cb2b541b48b4b3893e1ffa1e2@huawei.com> <ZBMDSGglBlpQuviD@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZBMDSGglBlpQuviD@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.48.133.44]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/9N5pb9b_I7kPHfXB7Lw9YN_3ER4>
Subject: Re: [core] Review of draft-fz-core-coap-pm-03
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 16:13:32 -0000

Hi Christian,
Please see inline [GF]

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:54 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
Cc: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca=40ri.se@dmarc.ietf.org>; core@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [core] Review of draft-fz-core-coap-pm-03

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:34:24PM +0000, Giuseppe Fioccola wrote:
> > * When using OSCORE, having the PM option as inner or outer does not
>
> I don't think that option should be Class-I. The option is hop-by-hop 
> now, and may be legitimately terminated at proxies. If it were 
> Class-I, a proxy's operation would make the requests fail.
> 
> [GF]: Yes, in case of collaborating proxies, the option is terminated 
> at proxies and Class E is ok. But, in case of non-collaborating and 
> non-caching proxies an implementation may consider the option as 
> Safe-to-Forward in order to implement measurements. In this corner 
> case, Class-I can be considered to enable hop-by-hop.

You can't just switch around an option between Class-I and Class-U depending on details of the deployment scenario. If there is any disagreement between client and server about an option's class, encryption will fail in practically impossible-to-debug ways.

[GF]: I agree that the option must be of a specific class to avoid compatibility issues. I will remove this ambiguity in the next revision.

The benefits to using it Class-I are fringe benefits. If you want to measure both in the end-to-end stacks and enable use with proxies, just place it outer (Class-U) and inner (Class-E).

[GF]: Yes, the outer option should be of Class-U to allow the on-path measurements.

And I say that as someone who is a big fan of Class-I options.

BR
c

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