IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] more thoughts about draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02.txt

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 25 June 2014 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0CC1B2BC3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9wzmd4yNaAoB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21BED1B2AF3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s5PBoAh6083205; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:50:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201406251150.s5PBoAh6083205@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:16:37 -0000. <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AEBC702@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:50:10 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/xzRdKW7Rfx-XqCFf2_rIrymEKy0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] more thoughts about draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:51:24 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  > - to document a way for an unsynchronized node to get a good time value,
>  >  for instance sending an Information-Request or a Solicit without
>  >  rapid-commit asking for a timestamp option in the ORO
>  
>  This has to be a separated document. It remains out of scope for this docume
>  nt. In most of cases, it is ok to assume a node have a time which has less 5
>  -min time drift. A brand new node without any knowledge of time is an edge c
>  ase.

=> to make timestamps more efficient for security you have to allow only
small drift, so a pre-synchronization procedure should help to solve
the unsecure/large vs secure/hard-to-implement drift. Note about the
first statement I agree it is "not normative".

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email