Re: [Dime] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <> Wed, 01 June 2016 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DA312B015; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zYf29pDUpoIS; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB5BC12D129; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u51IiBrk034893 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:44:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: Ben Campbell <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:44:11 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:44:19 -0000

On 1 Jun 2016, at 14:37, Ben Campbell wrote:

> I may not have been clear, but my concern was not that I though there 
> should be a non-repudiation requirement. It was that the text seemed 
> to have an implicit one, and if that was intended, it should be 
> explicit.

(To further clarify after re-reading my notes...)

I inferred the "implied" requirement from the fact that non-repudiation 
was used as the motivating example for the asymmetric algorithm 
requirement. That made the little voice in my head ask "Wait, is 
non-repudiation a requirement?"


> I'm also perfectly happy for the draft to not have such a requirement 
> (implicit or otherwise.)
> Ben.
> On 1 Jun 2016, at 14:32, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Thanks all for the discussion. I've one thing to add... as you
>> may detect, it's a thing about which I'm not neutral:-)
>> On 01/06/16 19:14, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>> - Requirement 7: This (along with some text in the introduction) 
>>>> implies
>>>> that non-repudiation is a requirement. If so, that should be listed 
>>>> and
>>>> elaborated as a requirement.
>>> I believe tnon-repudiation is already covered by the requirement #2,
>>> which says "..integrity, and data-origin authentication."
>> I'll put a DISCUSS on this if anyone adds non-repudiation as
>> a requirement! :-)
>> Non-repudiation is not a network service, even though it has been
>> described as one for decades. (Blame the security addendum to the
>> OSI reference model - afaik, that's where it started;-)
>> If one wants to provide what was claimed to be provided by
>> non-repudiation then one needs signed timestamps for pretty much
>> everything (and with counter signing for algorithm changes) and
>> distributed logs with signed events (and log integrity) for things
>> that happen at all nodes, and much else. None of that is useful for
>> Diameter and it therefore ought not be mentioned. Even were it
>> claimed to be useful, one would need to define a whole bunch of
>> new AVPs to try (but fail) to provide that fictional service.
>> Jouni is IMO correct that data origin authentication and data
>> integrity are the network security services that are relevant
>> and that can be offered here.
>> All that said, this is likely just a terminology thing, since
>> some people do still use the NR term when they mean integrity
>> and DAO with signatures, but it is *really* not a good idea to
>> add the NR term to the mix as it has distracted and misdirected
>> folks for literally decades and going back to that would be a
>> bad plan.
>> Cheers,
>> S.