IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] preliminary comments on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-17

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com> Mon, 07 November 2016 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3581294B2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:44:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 FJyeEMI22Q84 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:44:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (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 7900B1293F8 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 590151FD1A6; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 727DC160044; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:44:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61486160074; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:44:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 8EV-PCcz8G4H; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:44:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from jmb.localhost (c-50-156-82-172.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.156.82.172]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FDE7160044; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:44:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 09:44:12 -0800
Message-ID: <m2r36nuqvn.wl%jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
To: Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3w4Nd3s+ZojjiotLkKwys6truhUgK6F-90UYjcpB9iw=fKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJE_bqebwr2WUUgaNgiYS4_8L77Gxj4Os+oPRG407B6ELMEhCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ndi5Gq63n5kZnanRhLM8nWE2wsWGh0kJJLJnq=VoXLuCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqegh1DfWjfK2BxeC_fWa0cEk-KJNP0AT-TQuEa39w_wVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NdM99nv4C19Xj=aosNme+_Ymyys=xQ3UWUfeZReZC4ckA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdhGZnK16MooiyujDgthDNnR74EiwW0OevrN6uq4b4ANw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfKUZe2yaW1sAq7rrib0M7wz28HHtPLqCHK=vXcN6amgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Nd3s+ZojjiotLkKwys6truhUgK6F-90UYjcpB9iw=fKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/7ee2GEs59hpN7C-LttMhFRXn-cQ>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] preliminary comments on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-17
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:44:23 -0000

At Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:29:45 +0800,
Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com> wrote:

> > - Certificate for the public key for E1
> > - Certificate for the public key for A1
> > - Signature using A1 and HM
> >
> [LS]: In this way, we have two public key: public key for E1, and public
> key for A1.
> Which one will be used for the future encryption process?

(Obviously) the former, but I guess your real question is how the
client can determine that.  If so, that's a good point...I wasn't
aware of the ambiguity at the time of my previous message.  I'm afraid
we need some more additional protocol stuff to resolve this, e.g., add
a new field for the certificate option to specify for which it's
supposed to be used: encryption, authentication, or both.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email