IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] DTLS and Epochs

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 08 June 2017 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 1C544129C70 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 02:08:43 -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] 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 NkCv_YNJHmKI for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 02:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 81577129C5C for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 02:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5898as0018790; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:08:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from client-0010.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0010.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wk02r389vz3Z1F; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:08:36 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <83c2fca38c534509aa77241aa3105aad@FE-MBX1027.de.bosch.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 11:08:35 +0200
Cc: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 518605715.71506-7a9bf6f94800478af485e473a50229ea
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4FC55496-308A-4FCA-8003-6E0B4BB92015@tzi.org>
References: <003501d2cd32$c4417a10$4cc46e30$@augustcellars.com> <CAAzbHvYb39cPMmw_S0eZ4RSwzzmcE7636tjyu=kyCbUtBOwb0g@mail.gmail.com> <005e01d2cd8f$ae548dc0$0afda940$@augustcellars.com> <BC45A96C78AE43AF896A65A184D287B5@WeiGengyuPC> <014601d2daf1$8f1865c0$ad493140$@augustcellars.com> <849AEC05-87E3-48A7-B5C6-E6B6C8DC98D5@tzi.org> <015501d2dafe$dc53e640$94fbb2c0$@augustcellars.com> <0EE7D28C4BD94A4BB8ACA70FF0182BFC@WeiGengyuPC> <000001d2db51$a7d31c30$f7795490$@augustcellars.com> <B6BE0059DC7749D6AA5621CAE49E5073@WeiGengyuPC> <000301d2db56$24df9ab0$6e9ed010$@augustcellars.com> <35046B0695F64F97ABE9E1965062E7FC@WeiGengyuPC> <83c2fca38c534509aa77241aa3105aad@FE-MBX1027.de.bosch.com>
To: "Kraus Achim (INST/ECS4)" <Achim.Kraus@bosch-si.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/h8NoXBwt3ttVkB5QZglMoW6Y--Y>
Subject: Re: [core] DTLS and Epochs
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 08 Jun 2017 09:08:43 -0000

On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:17, Kraus Achim (INST/ECS4) <Achim.Kraus@bosch-si.com> wrote:
> 
> It's still unclear to me, if this should be considered to be the "same epoch" in the meaning of RFC7252.   
> 
> I pointed to that last summer (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg07816.html) but I could get clarification on that.

I think that we can agree that the current definition is
— not fully clear
— unrealistic in certain implementation environments (so it may not actually be implemented)
— unnecessarily restrictive.

Now the next question is what definition would
— make sense from an implementers’ point of view
— not be unnecessarily restrictive
— retain the desirable security properties of the current restrictive definition
- be clear
- maybe also make sense for DTLS 1.3 (which isn’t fully baked yet).

(And then we have to figure out the process for fixing it — that is not too hard once we know the extent of the change that needs to me made.  E.g., an RFC updating RFC 7252.)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status