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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 04 November 2016 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
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 25D84129531 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 UNmTHCy6uISO for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 901AD1288B8 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id x190so98799328qkb.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Nov 2016 08:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=f5N54A1d5311eiiohDzD0sd97X5fpTz4M6byVuWusn4=; b=r+VnhXkywkURLQ6+eoV/6D7a2zYE6haOEFcfjhMOc2rJHeh1RsP/HsHCnhkvPPJxOY COgwXCGTda/U3pzuUUCm8QJrZZyrrq+RnkUnliUmDrOvwUYS0pJKXx8mFcMQ3rsmJdRZ kBKbWSTZneJTYEOhI4fcnoy/zsT/hfCkJmE86MQamhsGQM3ebFTpBgLw8GD/MmjBSc3z YGYyGHYcxJ3Uj5OpaRlNr4lLW/N9Lv4n2boW5eDwKnUdLaF4q0GDYDb1HZt42ScCf8Up WXpVW4czF0rALAvQkrx94B3DBOKNsJHE0CHYkMu1P0Bnj5vKgPzm4nEHyhiiQvsUpvoH NiHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f5N54A1d5311eiiohDzD0sd97X5fpTz4M6byVuWusn4=; b=PNg0q4R2HM1gy3TUT1hfqNj/0ryQu3C+DrH4hhtaRDz5xqaR46PMmseVzJiF7K/VwI T+La9WgbudHOg1o5yhrXXdXiWV0+73pDerxTAw6Kqra66uEB9MNMP5Pi//bkq+0vIOm2 xSrds8TLPMYHwp6+5+VhLy8aKXM/S1LwlJIEV54Icdm8plcODTooUY8WBLK93G7ALYit onDZLNivrAmg0UAIBF+DnDK6GYUVjEHP4uaosxC6VbWciYzXYuLDuiPMc+Bj+FsdLNgk xB6B6JDxeYJErYLts5o2enjiKEIXtUCqoZPn8IGQ/NI1O7dBjpBJ84v6+FA+A5WvxM7h +F6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveRV4DwsrSavay6PdamGfy9KNi6BAsosrU+24ptb86BBw/auTioAIm0yANI+upIRJ8B5ZCw+CBD0P59OQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.145.65 with SMTP id t62mr12820169qkd.191.1478271866544; Fri, 04 Nov 2016 08:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.54.134 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3w4NdM99nv4C19Xj=aosNme+_Ymyys=xQ3UWUfeZReZC4ckA@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>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 08:04:26 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: G9pbDs9fuZUc8ah8gQ0kh_XIK5E
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdhGZnK16MooiyujDgthDNnR74EiwW0OevrN6uq4b4ANw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/F8qyzYBVYjGLdV0re5oL5cV-IAo>
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:04:29 -0000

At Fri, 4 Nov 2016 19:35:18 +0800,
Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > [LS]: In the current version, the server firstly sends a list of
> > supported
> > > algorithms through the Reply message. Then the client processes it
> > > according to the following method:
> > [...]
> > > So it is not possible that the the server does not support the
> > > acknowledged algorithms. So we also don't need to worry
> > > about how to return an encrypted Reply when the client's
> > > preferred encryption algorithm isn's supported by the server.
> >
> > One issue of this approach is that there's no way to recover from the
> > situation where the client doesn't support any of the server-supported
> > algorithms.
>
> [LS]: For this situation, the client can sent the mandatory algorithms set
> to the server.

...as long as the server includes certificate(s) and signature
for/with the mandatory algorithms.  One problem of the current version
is that this is not clear from the text.  Another issue is that this
is (IMO) wasteful, as discussed below.

> Also, the server will have to include certificates of all
> > the supported algorithms and signatures for all combinations of
> > supported hash and signature algorithms as it doesn't know which of
> > these works for the client.  This along with requiring the server
> > to always include mandatory algorithms will make this approach
> > workable, but it seemed to me to be unnecessarily wasteful and
> > complicated.  Hence my suggestion.
>
> [LS]: I don't think that the client/server need to contain all the
> supported
> algorithms. In default, all the servers and clients support the mandatory
> encryption, signature, hash algorithms. So the client/server may just
> need to contain the preferred algorithms and some of mandatory
> algorithms.

I was probably not clear enough by "all the supported algorithms", but
this is actually what I meant: all the preferred algorithms, and I
thought it was wasteful.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya