IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 1510A12966E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:54:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 8BOmeVzkGQ_l for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:54:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (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 AC3ED129691 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s140so146557846qke.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:54:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Kb6jRvB2dP7tudp+XDMpLa61UB+IfdhSNubmOqeEbW8=; b=2FHGxVz0xIXUEZ1QbNy0qXoGOaobmWsJqmSzY+AWj6P/osE77Rr9Z8V07/Jlm9bgAy hkET9J06WcqdjdnX4xo8qGxt8p3KOaX9GtHKsmN5euv8+hh99ic/80SLecs99atTVDHT znd4GJLqkRnWurjobtLRHYAdx6dsljm0FmLEyeC9skw4ndEZjC5SpWMiQqG9XvA57aBN fUTZZZl7g2KnOeqQSBBVAdNso/QpnIVgYdix2uSysSnTf91hSPx8i6A7TFgw6M9d30vh 6efDvOw3+VmuunmpXPMvmMKeSSPwq9e3d7lvu+sPp3SEo+3l1ycXnqD3Wp6J0PeZgC1j T4dQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Kb6jRvB2dP7tudp+XDMpLa61UB+IfdhSNubmOqeEbW8=; b=e0jCs2qFazjKFK++rLXM6gtQ9WK4Mk0nqOc2XGTiXDFxDSvgyWhfRWyuHIf//rJ0nU nJZpt13p5ldGP9PmMJJtZMwsl1Q2ECiMrUmZJ23SGfDkb6xcaB7W4OGLnU/k6R5TrQgH fiGPqOUeosFyK3O2zepoH8HgwkUzW2WlXnNTz6rsGCkPqz8DBjC57y72Q6BMeI7FYuub TiAYO/HFR6ik4morQYXDFs6QrMWFp7eovtou/J8+Od9mkFE4RYXhkPBKZaQZl12sbmTD B2exV2rmkcYjaV+6LPVQ/l3mF4EHWaBhDs+JtSfaVdU+0WEFsJ67ha/YJ4MiiFCyiqdk WMfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJDxviTTi9m1AVSuq5VLe8NUHHS6kyoeUZB3K8n+n6cl1STr63F+6vSFt4FJkrTMw==
X-Received: by 10.55.33.136 with SMTP id f8mr25059198qki.132.1485816871873; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:54:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.70.104.179] ([64.94.31.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s2sm13577712qts.25.2017.01.30.14.54.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:54:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <18BE1906-43BB-4505-A584-7A6F034852E3@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_75F4DA28-879D-4873-94E1-3049113659B3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:54:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <24F2F434-05FE-4E71-A75E-55DF632EA1D8@gmail.com>
To: "jouni.nospam" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
References: <148541310715.6205.3276873953603821357.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ff898bc0-81ce-7598-c3f3-2e114d30df30@gmail.com> <e996599692ff4584b8ace30a36ea6881@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <B3CE8C9D-C20C-4FAB-9054-0F09B2B87F63@gmail.com> <C099032E-F538-43AD-970F-F71A1A9E15D8@fugue.com> <367DE531-AF9C-40A3-8B1F-5F595D804023@gmail.com> <519FB5EF-52B0-4DEA-B670-2D2593C3FB66@fugue.com> <6DA7EAEF-C226-43E2-800A-9C3CB7F9FB6D@gmail.com> <3C1097F9-0F7A-4349-93E7-3A27BBDF1749@fugue.com> <24F2F434-05FE-4E71-A75E-55DF632EA1D8@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/QtFz3B-WmsWOv_w4WCu8bkckClo>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, Jouni Korhonen <jounikor@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security.all@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-02
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, 30 Jan 2017 22:54:42 -0000

On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:20 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now if I decide to implement rfc3315bis *with* security, follow all musts in Section 20.1, and listed “updates” in the header, I have still no guarantee whether I can interoperate with another rfc3315bis implementation because it decided to follow relay-server-security. That is not good.

Thanks.   This is the clarification I was looking for.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email